apple_files_search

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds a genuinely useful caveat: results depend on local Spotlight indexing, meaning misses are possible. 'Read-only' duplicates the annotation, but the indexing caveat and the single-folder constraint are real added behavioral context.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the read-only nature and the operation, with the indexing caveat immediately after. No wasted words.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and dispatch-relevant caveat, but omits any mention of the limit parameter or result shape (names vs. full paths, pagination). It is adequate but not complete.

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% for 3 parameters. The description clarifies the 'path' parameter (one allowed folder) and the 'query' parameter (filename matching, not content), which is meaningful beyond the schema. However, 'limit' is completely unaddressed and no format guidance for the query string is given, so compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Spotlight filename search') plus scope ('within one allowed folder'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like apple_files_list (enumeration) and apple_files_read_text (content read). The keyword 'filename' even clarifies that it matches names rather than file contents.

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 'within one allowed folder' scope implies the path must be a permitted directory, which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., apple_files_list) for agents that want unfiltered enumeration.

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