search_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds value by disclosing that scans are bounded, may report omissions and incomplete scopes, and that next_cursor is used for pagination. It also notes that PDF/Office/OCR content is not indexed, which is a behavioral limitation. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by behavior and a limitation. Every sentence adds information and nothing is redundant.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description covers only the search scope and a limitation. It does not explain how to use cursor for pagination, what path means, how limit works, or what the response format is. The bounded scan mention hints at completeness, but without parameter details the agent cannot reliably invoke the tool correctly.

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 explain the parameters. It does not. The phrase 'literal name or plain-text search' hints at the query and kind parameters, but does not explain path, limit, cursor, case_sensitive, or workspace. With 7 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the agent is left guessing at parameter formats 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 clearly states 'Literal name or plain-text search' – a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_directory or read_file. It also hints at the kind parameter (name vs content) and notes bounded scans, which differentiates it from a simple list operation.

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 gives context about what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. It mentions a key limitation (PDF/Office/OCR not indexed) which tells the agent when NOT to use it, but does not name any alternative tools or exclusion conditions. The intended use case is implied but not explicitly contrasted with list_directory or read_file.

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