find_large_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the top-10 limit and exclusions, but does not specify whether the search is recursive, what 'project' refers to, or the return format. This is sufficient for a likely obvious read-only operation but lacks richer behavioral detail.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes necessary qualifiers without any wasted words.

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 tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior. However, it lacks information about the return format and the exact definition of 'project', which are notable gaps for an agent that must interpret results.

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 schema description fully covers the single parameter (minSizeMB), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how the minimum size interacts with the 'top 10' limit.

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 finds the top 10 largest files in a project, with specific exclusions (node_modules, .git) and a platform constraint (WINDOWS). This differentiates it from sibling tools like read_dir or file_search.

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 gives clear context: it's for finding large files in a project on Windows, and it excludes certain directories. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or mention any alternatives, which would merit a 5.

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