mcquest_find_files

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It leads with 'READ ONLY' and also discloses case-insensitive matching and relative-path output. This is solid, though it could additionally clarify search-root behavior or default result limits.

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?

Two purposeful sentences with no filler. The most important caveat, READ ONLY, is front-loaded, followed by what it does and when to use it.

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?

The tool is simple and the output schema covers return structure, so the description need not restate that. It adequately covers the key behavior and usage context, but the unclear semantics for 'path' and 'max_results' leave a small completeness gap.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'query' is a filename substring and that results are relative paths, but it does not explain the 'path' or 'max_results' parameters. Those remain only inferable from their names 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Find project files'), states the matching behavior ('filename using case-insensitive substring matching'), and specifies the output ('Returns relative file paths'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like mcquest_list_files or mcquest_search.

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 a clear trigger: 'Use when you know a filename but not its location.' It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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