Find File

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds 'by Path' but does not disclose additional behaviors such as error handling on nonexistent paths, permission requirements, or the nature of the result. Minimal added value beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource, and contains no extraneous information. It is highly concise and easily scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is adequate for a simple lookup tool. However, it does not clarify what finding returns (e.g., path, metadata, boolean) or handle edge cases. The tool has one parameter and low complexity, so completeness is moderate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with the parameter 'path' described as 'Path to operate on.' The description reinforces this by mentioning 'by Path' but adds no new semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Find File/Folder by Path' clearly states the action (find) and the resource (file/folder) via a specific input (path). It distinguishes from sibling tools like List_For_Folder (listing contents) or Copy_File (copying) by focusing on location lookup. A score of 4 reflects clear purpose but lacking specificity on what finding returns (e.g., existence or metadata).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when needing to locate a file/folder by its path, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like List_For_Folder or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or preferred contexts is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.