search_files

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool searches by name or content and returns a list, but it does not explain scope, matching semantics, pagination behavior, permissions, or whether content search is exact or fuzzy. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. The only minor issue is that the Args section largely repeats the schema parameter names with little added value, but overall there is no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the basics: what it searches, the query parameter, page size, and return type. However, it lacks behavioral context like scope, order, and edge cases. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent that may need to decide between search_files and list_files.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only restates the parameter names: 'query' is a 'Search query string' and 'page_size' is 'Maximum number of results.' These add minimal meaning beyond the schema types and do not explain query syntax, matching rules, or how page_size behaves.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search for files by name or content.' This clearly states the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as list_files, leaving some potential ambiguity about when each should be used.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_files. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or exclusions. The word 'search' implies usage, but there is no direct comparison or routing information.

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