find

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and 'Changes nothing' is consistent with that. It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating the match is names only, not file contents, which frames what results can and cannot represent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then routing, then a scope caveat. No filler and nothing an agent must read twice.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers matching semantics, scope and the safety profile. The only gap is that the result-count behavior implied by the limit parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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%, so vault, folder, name_contains and limit are all self-documenting. The description restates case-insensitive name matching and vault scope but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; the limit/pagination parameter is untouched.

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 and folders in a vault) with the matching rule spelled out: names containing text, any case, returning paths. It explicitly carves itself away from list_folder, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('use it when you don't know where something is') and names the alternative (list_folder) for the browsing case. It stops short of addressing the other search-ish sibling, locate, so a full when-not/alternative matrix is not covered.

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