find_related_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions scoring symbols and grouping results, but does not discuss safety (e.g., read-only nature), permission requirements, or side effects. Some transparency is present, but gaps remain.

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 only two sentences, both essential and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 its low complexity, explicit usage guidance, and existence of an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description is fairly complete for the tool's purpose. Slight lack of behavioral details prevents a higher score.

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 description only explains the 'description' parameter implicitly and mentions 'max_results' defaults. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions in the schema.

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 verb 'Find', the resource 'files related to a natural language description', and the method 'by scoring symbols inside them'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_related_code and get_file_context by focusing on files and description-based search.

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 tells when to use ('when you need to understand which files are relevant to a feature or concept'). However, it does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings, which would be beneficial.

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