search_with_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool returns detailed information, but does not state whether it is read-only, what permissions are required, or any other behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, side effects).

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: a single sentence for purpose followed by a clear list of parameters. It is front-loaded with the main action and well-organized. No unnecessary repetition.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameters. However, given the large number of sibling search tools, it lacks information on how this tool differs from others (e.g., search_files, search_by_attributes). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but differentiation is missing.

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 description adds meaningful explanations for each parameter (e.g., valid values for sort_by, explanation of files_only and folders_only). This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing value beyond bare property names.

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 searches files and returns detailed information (name, path, size, dates). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling search tools, such as search_files or search_by_attributes, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not include any when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage from name and description alone.

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