find_files

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses wildcard and regex matching, but omits key behaviors such as whether search is recursive, whether hidden files are included, case sensitivity, and what the result structure or limits are. The description is too thin to fully inform an agent without annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and matching capability are front-loaded, making the description easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description plus schema is minimally viable for calling the tool, but lacks important context such as recursion behavior, default search scope, and how results are returned. Without an output schema or annotations, these gaps leave the agent to make assumptions about expected behavior.

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 four parameters (type, directory, max_results, name_pattern). The description adds little beyond restating name-pattern matching, so a baseline score of 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?

Description states a clear action ('Find') and resource ('files/dirs by name pattern'), and notes wildcard/regex support. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search_files, but the focus on name-pattern matching is specific enough to identify the tool's core purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use find_files versus search_files, list_directory, or other sibling tools. The description implies usage for name-based lookup, but does not state exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer selection logic.

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