search_files

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses recursion and workspace scoping, but says nothing about matching semantics (substring, glob, or regex), case sensitivity, result limits, or whether filenames only or paths are returned — all of which materially affect how an agent calls it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the verb and resource come first and the recursive scope follows. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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?

With two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral detail and it is too thin. An agent cannot predict match semantics, result shape, or how the directory default of "." interacts with the stated workspace scope.

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, and it does not: neither the required "query" nor the optional "directory" parameter is explained. The phrase "within the workspace" loosely relates to the directory scope but gives no syntax or default behavior, so an agent must guess at matching rules.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search filenames") plus scope ("recursively within the workspace"), which is enough to distinguish it from a plain listing or a content read. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling, list_files, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of list_files, read_file, or run_workspace_command, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites. The word "recursively" hints at a use case but leaves the agent to infer the routing decision.

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