find_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It notes that the tool uses code search and supports wildcards, and mentions result limits. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, or address permissions or side effects.

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 brief and front-loaded: a purpose sentence, a wildcard support note, and a structured list of parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (4 params, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the main purpose, parameter usage, and constraints like max results. It lacks mention of error handling or authentication, but the output schema likely compensates for return value details.

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%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter: query (pattern), project_key (optional scope), repo_slug (requires project_key), and limit (default 25, max 1000). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare names and types.

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 'Find files by name or path pattern using Bitbucket Server's code search,' which is a specific verb and resource. It also mentions Lucene wildcards, distinguishing it from siblings like list_files or browse_files.

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 usage for pattern matching via wildcards but does not explicitly contrast with other file listing tools (e.g., list_files, browse_files). No when-not to use or alternatives are mentioned.

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