find_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses case-insensitive matching, return type (list of relative paths), the return message when no matches are found, and that it does not search file contents. This gives the agent a solid behavioral model, though it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only (which is easily inferred from the search nature).

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 well-structured docstring with clear Args, Returns, and Note sections. It front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence and each subsequent line adds essential detail. The examples are useful without being excessive.

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 description covers all necessary context: purpose, query semantics, return format, no-match behavior, and an explicit alternative for content searches. Even though an output schema exists, the description already provides the relevant return details, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 input schema only defines 'query' as a string with no explanation. The description compensates richly by explaining that it is case-insensitive, can be a partial filename, extension, or keyword, and provides concrete examples ('meeting', '.md', 'project-alpha'). This is far beyond the schema and gives the agent actionable guidance.

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 in the Obsidian Vault that match a query and return the file paths.' This specifies the verb (find), resource (files in the Obsidian Vault), and output (file paths). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by naming find_in_all_file_content() as the alternative for content searches.

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 explicitly says 'Searches only file names/paths, not file contents. Use find_in_all_file_content() to search within file contents.' This provides a clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule and names the specific alternative tool, which is exactly what the dimension requires.

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