Files Search Files

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations. It does not disclose search scope, path restrictions, permission requirements, or any other runtime behavior.

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 brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The only sentence spends its words on the tool name and exposure mechanism instead of earning its place with functional information.

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 three parameters, no schema descriptions, and siblings like files_list_allowed_roots that affect path validity, the description leaves critical operational context unspecified. An agent cannot reliably determine what can be searched, under which root, or what constraints apply.

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 by explaining query, limit, and base_path. It mentions none of them, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter titles and defaults.

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 restates the tool name ('files_search_files') and adds only provenance ('exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP'), so it does not actually state what the tool does. It is a tautology rather than a functional definition.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like files_list_directory, files_recent_files, or files_list_allowed_roots. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection conditions.

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