ck_fs_find

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds context by clarifying that query is a path fragment or glob pattern and that the search is non-destructive. No contradictions; behavioral traits are well-explained beyond annotations.

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 concise (several sentences) and well-structured: purpose, read-only note, parameter explanations, usage guidelines. No redundant or filler text. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, parameter semantics, scope, and when to use alternatives. It feels complete for an AI agent.

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?

The description adds meaning for query ('path fragment or glob pattern'), path ('scopes search to subdirectory'), and limit ('default 50'), which go beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 80%, so baseline 3 is elevated to 4 due to these clarifications.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Find files or directories whose path contains a given fragment, searching within the bound project root.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming ck_fs_grep and ck_fs_read for alternative use cases.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use ck_fs_find to locate files by name or path') and provides alternatives for content search (ck_fs_grep) and reading known files (ck_fs_read). It also declares the tool is read-only, indicating it should not be used for modifications.

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