Buscar arquivos por nome

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the recursive search, exclusions (git/node_modules/dist), and symlink behavior, which is valuable context beyond the schema. It doesn't detail return format or error handling, but those are less critical for a search tool.

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 sentence that packs essential information: purpose (search files by name), scope (recursive), exclusions (ignores specific dirs), and symlink behavior. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. No redundant words.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the search behavior well, but it doesn't specify the return format (e.g., list of paths, relative/absolute) or clarify how 'max' affects results. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, it's slightly incomplete but adequate for basic usage.

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 coverage is 67%, with 'query' and 'path' having descriptions, but 'max' lacks description. The description reinforces the 'query' semantics (substring of filename) and the exclusions, adding clarity. For 'max' and 'path', the schema provides default and constraints, and the description adds the context of 'relative to workspace' for path. With 100% coverage, the description adds moderate value, justifying a 4.

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 tool searches for files by name containing a term, with specific exclusions (recursive, ignores .git/node_modules/dist, does not follow symlinks). It distinguishes itself from search_content, which presumably searches file contents, and from read_file/list_dir, by specifying the search-by-name behavior.

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 implies when to use this tool (search files by name) versus alternatives like search_content (implied for content search) and read_file (for reading). However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need to find files by name' or mention alternatives by name, leaving some room for inference.

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