search_by_attributes

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits entirely. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, if it requires special permissions, or any side effects. The description is minimal, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the parameter names.

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 and front-loaded with a clear purpose. The Args list is well-structured, but it could be tightened by removing redundant phrasing like 'Optional' for parameters that are already marked with defaults in the schema.

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 8 parameters, zero required ones, and many sibling tools, the description is adequate but not thorough. It does not discuss the output schema (which exists) or typical use cases, leaving some gaps for an agent to understand the full context.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by providing a one-line explanation for each parameter (e.g., 'hidden: Find hidden files'). Since schema coverage is 0%, this is a welcome addition, though explanations are brief and lack formatting or constraints.

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 'Search files by Windows file attributes.' This is specific enough to convey the tool's core function, but it does not differentiate from siblings like 'search_files' or 'search_by_type' which might also search files by other criteria.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply lists parameters without explaining scenarios where attribute-based search is preferable, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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