search_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does disclose the return format: one summarized record per match with listed fields. However, it is silent on the 'detailed' parameter, which changes results to full records with ffProbe and MediaInfo data, so the stated return shape is incomplete for one valid invocation mode.

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 with no fluff: the first states the action and criteria, the second states the endpoint and return shape. All information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 description is complete enough for the default summarized mode, but it does not mention that setting 'detailed' to true returns full ffProbe/MediaInfo records instead of the summarized record. Since there is no output schema, the description should carry more of this return-shape burden, and it also omits any mention of result limits or pagination.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by clarifying that 'search' matches against filename/file path and that size filters are supported, but it does not substantially add meaning beyond the schema. The slight wording shift from 'file path' in the schema to 'filename' in the description is minor but not clarified.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('Tdarr file database'), and the key filter dimensions (filename substring, file size). It also names the endpoint and describes the returned record shape, making it easily distinguishable from sibling search tools like search_plugins or search_job_reports.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to find files in the Tdarr database by substring or size. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_file, query_table, or query_database, so an agent must infer routing from context rather than being told.

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