find_files

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-destructive read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context (Spotlight-backed, filename matching), but omits result ordering, whether the default scope is the whole Mac, and any Spotlight-indexing/permission caveats.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the argument list is compact. The Args block slightly duplicates the schema titles, but the added examples earn their 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what comes back (full paths? names? ordering?), and it does not. Combined with no annotation beyond readOnlyHint, the definition is adequate but leaves a gap an agent would want filled.

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 full burden — and it does document all three parameters with concrete examples ('ECE 150', '~/Documents') and the default of 10. It does not explain limit bounds or the accepted folder path format beyond one example.

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 the Mac for files and folders by name') and even names the underlying mechanism (Spotlight). This clearly separates it from content-reading siblings like read_file, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool.

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 'by name' implies this is for filename lookup rather than content search, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to any sibling (e.g. read_file, list_embedded_files). The agent must infer the routing.

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