glob

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search and sorting behavior, but omits the key fact that patterns are recursive by default (only documented in the schema). It also doesn't mention that it's a read-only operation, though that is implied. The recursion behavior is a significant surprise that should be highlighted.

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 waste. It starts with the verb and resource and includes the key behavior (sorting). Every word earns its 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is adequate but misses the default recursive pattern behavior, which is a critical invocation detail. It also doesn't hint at pagination or token-overflow concerns, though those are covered in the schema. It's not incomplete enough to be a 2, but it leaves room for more.

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 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 the verb (searches), resource (files or directories), and a distinguishing behavior (sorted by modification time). It is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like grep (content search) and read/write operations.

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 conveys clear context for what the tool does but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. An agent can infer it's for path-pattern discovery, but there's no explicit routing like 'use grep for content search'.

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