Buscar arquivos por nome

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose important traits: recursion and ignored directories (.git/node_modules/dist). However, it does not describe the output format, behavior on nonexistent paths, whether directories are excluded entirely, or how the max parameter affects results.

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 efficient sentence with a parenthetical for constraints. Every element earns its place: the action, the matching rule, the recursive behavior, and the exclusion list. There is no filler.

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 simple 3-parameter tool, the description gives the core invocation context (recursive, ignores common vendored directories), but omits return value shape, error behavior, and explicit differentiation from content search. Given no output schema and no annotations, these omissions leave noticeable gaps.

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?

The schema already documents query as a case-insensitive filename substring and path as a workspace-relative directory, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. The max parameter has no schema description and the description does not compensate for that gap, though its name and adjacent constraints provide some clarity.

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 uses a clear verb ('Procura') and a specific resource ('arquivos cujo nome contém o termo'), and adds recursive scope and an ignore list. It is unambiguous and conceptually distinct from search_content, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like list_dir or search_content. The phrase 'por nome' implies filename-based search rather than content search, but the selection logic is left entirely to inference.

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