find_files

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and it delivers meaningful traits: recursion depth behavior, glob matching against the filename only (not the full path), and a hard cap of 500 results. It omits error behavior, hidden-file handling, and result ordering, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 Args/Returns structure is front-loaded and each line earns its place; no filler. The verbose docstring formatting is slightly heavy for a 2-parameter tool but does not obscure the content.

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?

For a 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: workspace-relative semantics, matching scope, and the 500-result return bound. Only edge-case behavior (errors, hidden files, symlinks) is left unspecified.

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 compensate, and it does: 'path' is defined as relative to the workspace root and 'pattern' as a filename-only glob with concrete examples ('*.py'). It does not restate the schema defaults ('.' and '*'), which would be the only remaining gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+mechanism: 'Recursively find files under a directory matching a glob pattern.' An agent can distinguish this from list_directory (non-recursive) and search_text_in_files (content search) by the recursion + filename-glob combination, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no conditions under which to prefer find_files over list_directory or search_text_in_files. Usage is only implied by the verb 'find'.

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