search_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses server-side execution, case-insensitive substring matching, newest-first ordering, and the important edge case that omitting `query` turns the tool into an unfiltered listing. It does not mention pagination beyond the schema's limit, nor whether folders are included in results, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core search semantics are front-loaded before the edge case about omitted `query`. Every clause conveys actionable information.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only search with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this covers the essential behavior an agent needs: match rule, scope, ordering, and the no-query fallback. Gaps are minor — result field shape and pagination behavior are left unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by clarifying that `query` is a substring match against the name and that `mime_type` is optional and independent of the query. It does not restate the wildcard syntax or limit bounds, but the schema already handles those.

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 ('Server-side search by name') plus the matching semantics (case-insensitive substring) and result ordering (newest first). It clearly distinguishes itself from read_file/get_file_info by being a search over a folder tree, though it never names the nearest sibling list_files, which also enumerates folder 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?

'Without `query` lists everything matching the filter' implies a browse mode, so the when-to-use is inferable rather than stated. There is no explicit guidance on choosing this over list_files, recent_files, or get_file_info, and no note about when the MIME filter should be preferred over a name query.

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