find_drawing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the search is case-insensitive, uses substring matching, sorts by modification date, and is restricted to allowed roots. This adds meaningful context beyond a simple 'find' operation, though it doesn't cover every behavior (e.g., recursion, limit semantics).

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. Every sentence adds value: the search criteria, the sorting behavior, and the root restriction. No redundant text or filler.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and key behaviors, and an output schema exists, so return values may be documented elsewhere. However, it omits some operational details like whether the search is recursive, the effect of the 'limit' parameter, and what happens if 'root' is empty. For a read-only search tool, it is adequate but has clear 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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'name' (via 'por nombre') and 'root' (via AUTOBAT_SEARCH_ROOTS), but does not explain the 'limit' or 'extension' parameters. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 tool's function: searching for DWG/DXF files on disk by name (substring, case-insensitive). It specifies the verb 'Busca' (searches), the resource (archivos DWG/DXF en el disco), and the scope (by name), distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_nested.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to locate a drawing file by name), but it does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools or exclusions, so usage guidance is only implied.

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