search_files

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that it searches by name and describes parameters, but fails to mention whether the search is recursive, case-sensitive, or read-only. No output format or error behavior is disclosed.

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, with a single opening sentence and a clean Args block. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple search tool, the description is minimally complete, but it omits critical behavioral details like recursion and case sensitivity. The output schema exists, covering return structure, but the lack of behavioral transparency and usage context makes it incomplete.

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%, but the 'Args' section adds meaningful interpretation: query is 'filename or partial name' and path is 'relative directory' with a default. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could clarify wildcard or matching behavior.

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 purpose: 'Search for files by name on WD MyCloud.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and naturally distinguishes itself from siblings like list_directory and read_file by focusing on name-based search.

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 usage (search by name) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The presence of sibling tools such as list_directory suggests alternative use cases, but no comparison is made.

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