search_files

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains glob-pattern matching and wildcard support, but does not mention return format, recursion behavior, hidden files, or side-effect-free nature; 'search' does imply a read-only operation.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler; the main action is front-loaded and the wildcard support example is immediately useful. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description plus full schema coverage is largely sufficient for invocation. However, with no output schema, the description does not state what the tool returns (e.g., list of paths) or clarify recursive search behavior, leaving minor but real gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both 'pattern' and 'directory' already described and examples given in the schema. The description's wildcard examples largely repeat those schema examples, adding minimal new meaning beyond the tool-level purpose.

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 states a specific action ('Search for files') and mechanism ('glob patterns'), clearly identifying it as filename-pattern search. The wildcard examples further distinguish it from sibling tools like list_directory, read_file, and get_file_info.

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 purpose implies when to use it—when you need to locate files by name pattern—but the description offers no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage context.

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