Search Files (Kilo-Kit)

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds only that the search spans the workspace, which is modest additional scope context, but it does not disclose rate limits, return behavior, or other operational traits beyond what annotations already cover.

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?

A single sentence with no redundant wording. The core action is front-loaded and easily scanned, earning its place fully.

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?

For a 7-parameter, non-destructive search tool with 86% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits usage routing against siblings, does not mention the format parameter’s output implications, and gives no guidance on sessionId or search scope beyond 'workspace'.

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 86%, so the schema itself documents nearly all parameters well. The description adds the idea of pattern/substring/glob matching, which is already captured in the schema, but does not explain aliases like glob/query or sessionId, so it neither helps nor harms much beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: search for files by pattern, substring, or glob. It is clear what the tool does but does not distinguish itself from sibling search tools such as kilo_grep_code, leaving the agent to infer that this searches file paths/names rather than file contents.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer kilo_search_files over kilo_grep_code or kilo_search_skills, so the agent gets only an implied usage.

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