find_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (fuzzy match by filename) and provides an example with pattern and directory, but it does not explain return values, scope of search (e.g., recursive), or any limitations. This is adequate but not rich.

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 one sentence with a practical example. It immediately states the purpose and includes a concrete usage illustration, making it both concise and easy to parse.

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, the description and example cover the essential usage. However, the lack of any output schema means the agent does not know what to expect as a return, and the description does not mention that (e.g., list of paths, matches). Given low schema coverage and no annotations, slightly more detail would improve completeness.

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% and the schema only provides names and a default for directory. The example partially compensates by showing pattern='报告' and directory='C:/Users/xxx/Desktop', implying that pattern is a filename keyword and directory is the folder to search. However, it does not fully explain the parameters' semantics beyond the example.

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 tool's function: fuzzy search files by filename. It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (files), and distinguishes it from siblings like run_cli or open_folder which serve different purposes.

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 when to use it (searching for files by name) through the example, and the sibling tools are not similar, so there is no confusion. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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