search_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral details: recursion, glob pattern format, return of full paths, default maxResults=10000, and excludePatterns support. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence covers purpose and output, the second lists parameters. No superfluous text, information is front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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 search tool with an output schema (likely defining return structure), the description covers key aspects: recursion, glob patterns, parameters, and return (full paths). Minor lack of detail on output format is mitigated by the presence of an output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by listing all parameters, noting required ones, explaining pattern syntax ('*.ext or **/*.ext'), and stating default for maxResults (10000). This is essential for correct tool invocation.

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 it searches for files matching glob patterns, using a strong verb ('search') and specific resource ('files'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_directory or directory_tree by specifying recursive search and glob pattern matching.

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 indicates when to use (recursive glob search) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage for pattern-based file searching but lacks comparative context with siblings.

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