find_files

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the high-level action and does not mention recursion defaults, return format, hidden-file handling, error behavior, or whether matches are paths or full objects. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and the object, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but arguably usable for basic cases. It does not explain the result shape, whether paths are absolute or relative, or how recursion and result limits behave beyond what the schema already states. This is adequate for a simple find operation but not complete for confident autonomous invocation.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds only the generic idea of matching a pattern and a directory, which maps to path and pattern, but provides no extra semantic detail 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 action ('Search') and the resource ('files matching a pattern in a directory'), which makes the main purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_directory_listing, but the pattern-matching wording provides enough 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 description implies usage: use this tool when you need to find files by pattern. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare against the close sibling get_directory_listing. The usage context is clear only at a basic level.

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