search_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful prerequisite (server-side search enabled) and an auth constraint (account token only). But it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any rate limits or side effects.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with 'Search files,' and contains no filler. The parenthetical is slightly cryptic but compact.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is under-specified. It does not explain parameter roles, return value, or edge cases, leaving an agent to rely on inference.

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. It only references account_token, leaving query, repo_id, repo_token, library_name, and session_token unexplained. The purpose of 'query' is inferable from context, but most parameters are not described.

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 and resource ('Search files') and adds a scoping constraint about account token and server search. It is not a tautology, and the action distinguishes it from browsing tools like list_directory, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives a prerequisite: 'account token only; needs search on server,' which implies when the tool can be used. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this over sibling tools like list_directory or read_file.

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