find

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of context — the output format matches 'ls' — but says nothing about default exclusions, pagination behavior, or search scope beyond what the schema field descriptions already give.

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, scope first, cross-reference second — no filler. Its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than verbosity, but nothing is wasted.

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 six-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description leans entirely on the opaque cross-reference 'same output as ls', which an agent cannot resolve without calling another tool. Combined with rich schema coverage this is workable, but the return shape and result ordering remain 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the 'em' enum and 'fechados' default is already documented. The description only repeats that the input is text, adding no syntax, matching rules, or operator details.

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 in Portuguese: searches ('Busca') work packages by text. That contrasts implicitly with the sibling 'ls' (plain listing), though the distinction is inferred rather than spelled out.

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 explicit statement of when to use this over 'ls' or any other sibling; the only hint is 'Mesma saída do ls', which describes output, not selection criteria. An agent must guess that 'find' is for when you only have text rather than an id.

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