Search files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the substring/path matching rule, but says nothing about recursion depth, result caps, pagination, or result ordering — traits an agent needs to plan a search.

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 front-loaded sentence with the matching rule stated inline and zero 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?

A two-parameter read with no output schema; the description adequately covers what is matched but not what is returned (file objects vs paths) or whether results are truncated or paginated, which matters for a recursive cloud-wide search.

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 100%, including the default '/' and recursion note for path, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the case-insensitive path-match semantics for query but adds nothing the schema does not already say.

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?

States a specific verb (search) plus resource (files/directories) and the matching semantics (path contains query, case-insensitive substring). This is clear and distinct from write_file/delete_item, though the boundary with list_directory is not explicitly drawn.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over list_directory or stat, and no note that the query matches paths rather than content. Usage must be inferred from the description's matching rule alone.

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