find

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: respects .gitignore, returns paths relative to search directory, and truncation limits of 1000 results or 50KB. This is valuable beyond the schema. Missing: whether it follows symlinks, searches recursively, or permission behavior.

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 compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, return format, and truncation behavior. Front-loaded with the core action and zero waste.

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 3-param read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, return format, gitignore behavior, and truncation limits. It's nearly complete, though could mention error behavior or recursion scope.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with examples. The description mentions glob pattern and search directory context but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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+resource (search for files) and the mechanism (glob pattern). It distinguishes itself from grep (content search) implicitly by saying 'files' and 'glob', though it doesn't explicitly name siblings like grep or ls.

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 usage (search by glob pattern) but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like ls, grep, or bash. An agent can infer it finds files by name, but no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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