cascade_remote_find

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the READY-handle state requirement, a genuine behavioral trait, but says nothing about return format, how limit interacts with results, or whether this is a read-only operation. Partial disclosure only.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the precondition immediately after. No filler or 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?

For a fully documented 4-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and one precondition. It stops short of clarifying result behavior or routing against the many remote siblings, leaving modest gaps.

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 100%, so path, limit, handle, and pattern are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Find) and resource (files matching a glob pattern) scoped to a remote target, which is clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling cascade_remote_grep, so an agent must infer that find is name/path matching rather than content 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 supplies a precondition ('Requires a READY handle'), which is useful context, but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like cascade_remote_grep or cascade_remote_ls. Usage is left to inference from the verb.

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