find_filesSearches Android device shared storage for files matching a name query, with configurable path, depth, and limit. Leave query empty to list all files.
Find files under shared storage whose name contains query (empty lists everything).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | /sdcard | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| device | No | ||
| max_depth | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals one non-obvious behavior (empty query lists everything), but it does not state whether the search is recursive, how `max_depth` and `limit` behave, what `device` selection implies, or any side effects. This leaves a substantial transparency gap for an unannotated tool.
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 entire description is a single sentence with a useful parenthetical. The primary verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word adds value without repeating the title or schema defaults.
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 tool with five parameters and no annotations, a one-sentence description is thin. It omits the default root path, depth/limit semantics, and device-selection role, forcing an agent to infer from parameter names alone. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of parameter context.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only clarifies the `query` parameter ('name contains' matching and empty behavior); `path`, `limit`, `device`, and `max_depth` receive no semantic explanation beyond their names and default values. The description does not disambiguate what `max_depth` means or how `limit` is applied.
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 opens with the verb 'Find' and specifies the resource ('files under shared storage') plus the matching rule ('name contains query'), with a parenthetical clarifying empty-query behavior. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like list_apps or browser_find, so an agent can recognize what the tool does and what it does not do.
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 provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the one-line purpose, which is clear in context but lacks any direct comparison to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.