search_files_api_v1_files_search_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions SQL-based filtering and pagination, but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or result format. The tool name implies a read operation, but the description does not confirm.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, and the second adds relevant detail. No redundant or unnecessary 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (so return values are covered) and relatively good schema parameter coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers the search capability, wildcard support, and performance via pagination. The only gap is the lack of explicit read-only confirmation.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters described). The description adds value for the 'filename' parameter by mentioning wildcard pattern support, but the 'content', 'skip', and 'limit' parameters are not enhanced beyond the schema. The pagination note is generic.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'files by filename', with mention of wildcard support. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_files_api_v1_files (which lists all files) and other search tools by focusing on filename and wildcard patterns.

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 for filename search with wildcards and mentions pagination for performance, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. There are many sibling search tools, but no guidance on differentiation.

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