find_file

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

The description adds the key behavioral trait that it ignores gitignored files, and it states the return format. However, it does not disclose whether the search is recursive, what form the paths take in the result, or any potential side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden but leaves these behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. It conveys the essential information efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and full schema parameter coverage, the description covers the essentials. The only notable gap is the lack of clarity about recursion depth and whether the returned paths are absolute or relative, but overall it's a well-specified 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 already provides clear descriptions for both file_mask and relative_path, with 100% coverage. The description does not add any further detail about parameter formats, examples, or constraints, so it adds no value beyond the schema.

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 the tool's function: finds files by mask, with the specific scope of non-gitignored files and a relative path. It also specifies the return type (JSON object with list), and the verb 'Finds' is appropriate. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file (content reading) and search_for_pattern (presumably content search).

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 it (to locate files by name pattern) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like list_dir and search_for_pattern are not referenced, so the agent must infer the appropriate tool without clear guidance on when to prefer this over those.

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