search_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about scope (names vs. content), recursion depth, pagination, or result ordering. The only trait disclosed is the keyword-matching mode, which is minimal for a query tool with no safety hints.

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?

A single four-word sentence with no padding, so nothing is wasted — but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, and there is no structural front-loading of scope or constraints.

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 four-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the definition leaves far too much unspecified. An agent cannot confidently determine what is searched, how pagination behaves, or how results come back.

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%, so all four parameters (page, path, search, pageSize) are undocumented. The description only hints that a keyword goes somewhere, plausibly the 'search' param, and leaves path scoping and pagination entirely unexplained.

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 names a verb ('Search') and a resource ('files') plus a qualifier ('with keyword'), so the general intent is graspable. However, it is ambiguous whether it searches file names or file contents, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like list_files, check_file, or get_file_tree.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite dozens of adjacent file-listing and file-inspection tools. The agent is left to infer that this is the right tool whenever a keyword search is wanted.

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