search_uss_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds only the existence of result capping; it does not explain capping defaults, recursion scope, or the environment default behavior, so incremental value is modest.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with zero filler. Slightly terse rather than bloated.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus annotations and schema provide enough to call it correctly. Only the environment parameter and capping defaults are left to the schema, which handles them.

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% and each parameter is well documented there. The description mirrors the same facts (wildcard pattern, type filter, sort, capping) without adding syntax or edge-case detail, so it sits at the baseline.

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) and resource (files/directories in a USS directory) and adds the wildcard-matching scope. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_uss_directory and read_uss_file by the 'search matching pattern' framing, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 says what it supports (type filter, sort, capping) but gives no when-to-use guidance and no explicit contrast with list_uss_directory or search_members. The agent must infer selection from the verb alone.

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