find_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful matching behavior ('pattern without / also matches bare file names'; 'path empty means the first root') and the stopping condition, but says nothing about result ordering, error behavior on a missing path, or scoping beyond the first root.

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?

A single front-loaded lead sentence followed by one terse line per parameter; no filler, and the examples appear before the mechanics. The parameter lines are telegraphic but each still 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all three parameters are documented in the description despite 0% schema coverage. What remains thin is error/edge-case behavior, which is minor for a read-only file finder.

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 carry the load and largely does: all three parameters are explained, including what the pattern is matched against, the meaning of an empty path, and what max_results truncates. It stops short of stating the default values or whether max_results counts matches or scanned entries.

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 and resource ('Find files by name') and reinforces it with concrete glob examples ('*.md', 'docs/**/*.py'). An agent can distinguish it from content-oriented siblings like `search` or `list_dir` from the glob semantics, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied clearly by the glob examples and the pattern-vs-path distinction, so an agent can infer that this is for name matching rather than directory enumeration. However it never states when to prefer this over `list_dir` or `search`, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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