search_by_file_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It specifies substring matching, case-insensitive behavior, sorting by file path, and result limits (max 50), which are valuable beyond the schema. It does not explicitly note that the operation is read-only, but the search nature implies it.

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 compact yet complete: a clear purpose sentence, a usage hint, and organized Args/Returns sections. Each sentence adds value, and the structure makes parameters and return value easy to scan.

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 4-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all parameters, return type, and sorting behavior. It could also mention behavior for invalid inputs or empty results, but the description is otherwise comprehensive.

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 provides only parameter names and types with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining path_pattern with examples, node_type allowed values, limit constraints (default 30, max 50), and project semantics, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 nodes by file path pattern using substring matching, providing a specific verb and resource. It gives usage context for locating nodes in packages/modules/directories, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling search tools like query_nodes.

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 a clear use case ('finding all nodes in a package, module, or directory') and adds matching semantics, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or references to alternative sibling tools for other search criteria.

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