search_by_type

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the bare minimum (e.g., that it searches). It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what it modifies, performance implications, or authentication requirements.

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: a single purpose sentence followed by a clear parameter list. No redundant words, and essential information is front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits important context like case sensitivity, behavior on no results, or sorting. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete for a tool with 4 parameters and 15 siblings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: file_type lists valid types, query and folder_path are optional, and max_results shows a default. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema types, though it could be more precise (e.g., format of query or folder_path).

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 for specific file types' and lists the allowed file types, but it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'search_files' or 'search_folders', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific variant.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_files' or 'search_recent_files'. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions.

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