fuzzy_find

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are ranked by match quality and that it's faster than glob. However, it does not mention case sensitivity, whether it indexes files, or any potential side effects. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise (~80 words), well-structured with a bolded usage guideline, followed by explanation, comparison, and examples. Every sentence is informative and earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers purpose, usage, comparison, and examples. It does not describe the output format in detail, but the detail_level parameter implies variable output. A minor gap exists, but overall it's sufficient for effective tool selection.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for the query parameter and explaining the detail_level options. This goes beyond bare descriptions, helping the agent choose appropriate values.

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 performs fuzzy filename search, using specific verbs like 'Fuzzy search' and resource 'filenames'. It distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with 'glob with wildcards' and mentioning alternatives like 'search_content' and 'search_files' implicitly through context.

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?

Explicitly says 'USE WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW THE EXACT FILENAME' and highlights that it's faster than glob for guessing. Provides examples to illustrate typical use. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context makes it clear that exact name searches should use other tools.

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