find_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses recursion and the automatic skipping of build/vcs directories, which are not inferable from the schema. It could add nuance about result limits or matching rules, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three short paragraphs, each earning its place: the first line defines the action, the second gives usage context, and the third warns about skipped directories. The key facts are front-loaded.

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 listing tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, exclusions, and an alternative tool. It is missing explicit parameter semantics for max_results, but the existence of an output schema reduces the need to document return shape.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies file_glob as a name pattern and path as a recursive tree search, but it does not explain glob syntax or the max_results parameter's truncation behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Description opens with a clear verb and resource: 'List files matching a name pattern, recursively.' It explicitly contrasts with list_directory ('shows one level; this searches the tree'), making the tool distinguishable from a key sibling at a glance.

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?

States when to use it: 'Use this to answer what exists before reading anything,' with concrete examples. It also names an alternative and the distinction (list_directory for one level, this for tree-wide search), satisfying the when-to-use vs alternative requirement.

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