portal_glob

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses: returns structured JSON, sorts newest first, hard-caps at 100 files, does not respect .gitignore. All key behavioral traits are covered.

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 well-structured: bold key point, then Args section, then return shape and comparison. Every sentence adds value; it's concise yet comprehensive.

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 3 parameters and existence of output schema, the description explains all arguments and return fields (filenames, num_files, truncated, duration_ms). It also covers edge cases (cap, sorting, relative paths). Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, but description adds meaning: host as SSH alias, pattern with examples (e.g., '**/*.py'), path with default '.' and note that returned filenames are relative to it. This compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Find files by a glob pattern on a remote host'. It differentiates from siblings by specifying 'Prefer this over running raw find/ls through portal_exec' and 'Use portal_grep when you need to match file contents instead'.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Prefer this over portal_exec' and 'Use portal_grep for contents'. Also notes that it does NOT respect .gitignore, informing when not to use it.

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