slide_search_agent_files

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

No annotations exist, so the description must stand alone. It usefully discloses that the search is limited to indexed file paths on a protected system and that indexing must be enabled, but it does not mention return values, pagination behavior, or authorization requirements. This is minimal but non-misleading contextual disclosure.

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 sentence with no filler, and the crucial prerequisite is placed in a parenthetical at the end. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 read-only search tool, the description plus the fully documented schema gives an agent the core invocation details: required agent_id/search_term, pagination, and sort options. It lacks an explicit statement of what the returned matches look like, but with no output schema defined it does not need to enumerate return fields. The main gap is absence of guidance tying it to alternatives, which is already covered under usage guidelines.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including defaults and the enum for sort_by. The description adds no param-specific detail beyond reinforcing that the target corpus is file paths, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Search' and identifies the exact resource—'file paths indexed on an agent's protected system'—which is enough to understand the tool's scope. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as slide_get_agent_file_versions or slide_browse_file_restore, so it misses the top point on sibling differentiation.

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 parenthetical 'requires file indexing to be enabled on the agent' provides a clear precondition for use, telling the agent when the tool is available. It does not name alternative tools or spell out when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear to qualify as 4.

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