file_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses case-insensitivity and diacritics-insensitivity, the all-words-must-match requirement, the metadata-only scope, the scan_limit cap, and the meaning of truncated=true. This is exceptionally transparent for a search tool and goes well beyond minimal expectations.

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 structured into short, purposeful sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then detail matching rules, scope, and limitations. It is efficient without being terse, though it could be slightly tightened. The information density is high and each sentence earns its place.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and semantic context: matching logic, root formats, metadata-only scope, and truncation. It does not explain the output structure (covered by the output schema) or edge cases like null root, but overall it equips an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'root' with concrete values (region names, S3 URIs, local folders) and defines query semantics with examples. It also indirectly explains scan_limit via truncation behavior, but 'limit' is not addressed. Overall, it adds substantial meaning for the key parameters, though not all.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Tìm file theo tên/đường dẫn' (Find files by name/path). It also explicitly clarifies scope with 'Chỉ tìm metadata, không tìm nội dung file' (only metadata, not content), distinguishing it from content-reading siblings like file_read. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides query-construction rules (every word must appear in the path) and examples, which helps usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over file_list or file_tree, nor does it state when not to use it. The 'metadata only' note implies alternatives for content, but without naming them, guidance remains implicit.

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