localFindFiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: performance note ('Faster than content search due to metadata indexing'), default exclusion directories, time format examples, and pagination details (filesPerPage, charOffset). No contradictions with 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 well-structured with clear sections (when, fromTool, toTool, gotchas, examples) and front-loads the core purpose. However, it is relatively verbose; could be more concise by removing redundant phrases. Still easily scannable.

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's complexity (many parameters and pagination), the description provides comprehensive context: usage workflow, examples, performance characteristics, and exclusion defaults. An output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed.

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 coverage is 100% with individual parameter descriptions. The description enhances understanding via examples (e.g., time formats '7d', '2h') and gotchas (e.g., excludeDir defaults), but does not add new meaning for each parameter beyond what schema already provides.

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 finds files by metadata (name, time, size, permissions) on the local filesystem. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools: 'NOT for content - use localSearchCode' and fromTool section links to localViewStructure, making differentiation unambiguous.

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 <when> section provides explicit guidance on when to use (metadata search, scope narrowing, recent changes) and when not to (content search, directing to localSearchCode). The <fromTool> and <toTool> sections further specify workflow ordering with other tools.

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