find

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it warns that find can scan across mounts, and the path schema note clarifies that home is a starting directory, not a sandbox. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core purpose and the second gives a practical, front-loaded usage note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

At moderate complexity with four parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the limit parameter, the meaning of workspace_id, return value format, or glob syntax expectations, so an agent may not call it correctly.

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 only 25%, so the description needs to compensate. It clarifies that pattern is a glob and advises bounding path, but limit and workspace_id are left undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving required parameters underspecified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find files by glob'. The glob qualifier distinguishes this from sibling tools like ls and grep, although it doesn't name alternatives and the phrase 'using Pi' is ambiguous.

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 advice to 'Use a bounded path to avoid scanning unrelated mounts' is a concrete usage tip, and glob-based search implies when the tool is appropriate. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose find over related siblings such as ls or grep.

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