Search for files and directories by name within an authorized directory tree. Specify root, path, depth, and limit to locate matching items without using the Android UI.
Recursively search names below an authorized directory without using the UI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| rootId | Yes | ||
| maxDepth | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context about recursion and non-UI execution, but it does not disclose important behaviors such as return format, traversal order, or what 'authorized directory' means in practice.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose and differentiating context, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and five parameters, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. An agent still cannot determine what rootId should reference, how query patterns are matched, what path is relative to, or what the returned data looks like.
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 carries the burden of explaining the five parameters. It only vaguely hints at 'names' (query) and 'authorized directory' (rootId), and says nothing about path, limit, maxDepth, or how query matching works. The property names and defaults help, but the description adds very little semantic value.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('search'), a specific resource ('names below an authorized directory'), and a method ('recursively ... without using the UI'). This differentiates it from UI-based search tools like android_ui_find and from simple listing tools like android_file_list.
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 phrase 'without using the UI' implies this tool is the non-UI path for finding files, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over android_file_list, android_ui_find, or other search approaches. The usage context is somewhat clear, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.