find

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation—such as recursion behavior, path interpretation, or handling of max_results—leaving important operational details unspecified.

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 a single, 8-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Find'. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 schema and annotations provide solid structural and safety information, but the description omits key behavioral details such as whether the search is recursive, how 'path' maps to the server root, and the effect of max_results. For a relatively straightforward find tool, this leaves some ambiguity, though it remains adequate.

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?

All four parameters have full schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, and the schema descriptions are sufficient on their own.

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 uses the specific verb 'Find' with a clear resource ('files or directories') and a matching criterion ('glob-style name match'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read, grep, and ls, which handle content reading, content searching, and listing respectively.

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 implies usage for locating files or directories by name pattern, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'ls' or 'grep'. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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