search_paths

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses case-insensitive search, kind filter, limit on results, and that returns include total aggregate size. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 but well-structured with a short intro, a bullet-like Args list, and a Returns line. The example parenthetical adds value. Could be slightly more organized but efficient overall.

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 (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: usage, parameter details, behavioral notes, and return summary. The 0% schema coverage is fully compensated.

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 explain all parameters. It does so thoroughly: scan_id, query (keyword/path fragment), kind (all/files/folders), limit (max 200, default 50). It also provides default values and clarifies behavior.

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 'Search for paths in a scan by keyword' and provides concrete examples like 'node_modules', 'cache' etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like disk_summary or top_entries by focusing on free-text path searching within a scan.

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 says 'Useful for finding specific directories or files', giving clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the purpose is self-explanatory enough given the sibling tool names.

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