test_glob

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context about supported glob syntax (**, ?, character classes, brace expansion), but does not state the return type (e.g., boolean), case sensitivity, or error behavior. This is a basic but not exhaustive disclosure.

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 single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a parenthetical with feature details. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's core function and glob syntax support. However, it omits explicit statements about return values (e.g., true/false) and potential edge cases, which would be helpful but are not critical for understanding basic usage.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('pattern' and 'path'), including an example. The tool description does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that the pattern supports glob features. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 with a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('file path matches a glob pattern'). It also enumerates supported glob features, distinguishing it from regex-based tools like test_regex. The purpose is unambiguous and directly reflects the tool name.

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 provides clear context: it is for testing glob patterns, which implicitly indicates when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., test_regex for regex) or exclusions. The context is specific enough for a simple utility.

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