Findfiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only listing and states the return type, but says nothing about error behavior when no files match, whether traversal follows symlinks, or how permissions problems surface.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words, and the core purpose plus return type are front-loaded. The second sentence is thin but does not bloat the definition.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, but with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter description coverage the definition leaves the two most important parameters ('base' and 'pattern') undocumented. For a three-parameter search tool this is under-specified.

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% across three parameters, and the description only touches one of them ('Supports recursion'). The meaning of 'base' (root directory, default '.') and 'pattern' (glob vs regex, default '*') is left entirely undefined in both schema and description.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Find files') and adds the return shape ('JSON array of paths'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as ReadManyFiles, ReadFolder, or SearchText, which also surface files or matches.

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 only usage statement is 'Supports recursion', which describes a capability rather than a selection condition. There is no guidance on when to pick FindFiles over ReadFolder, ReadManyFiles, or Shell, and no mention of prerequisites such as glob syntax.

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