Search Files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully notes the index contains files 'may have been ingested by nl-search,' clarifying the searchable scope. It says nothing about ranking, the effect of k, or that results are scored/limited, leaving meaningful behavior undisclosed for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 core purpose followed by the trigger and the modality enumeration. No filler or 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. The description covers purpose, trigger, and modality values adequately. The main remaining gap is k's meaning, which is relevant for a tool that returns a bounded result set.

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 the description should compensate. It does explain modality by listing valid values (text, image, video, pdf), which helps, but k and query are left entirely to the schema — and k (a non-obvious default-8 result count) is undocumented anywhere.

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 — 'Search the local file index with natural language' — which is clear and actionable. It also enumerates the content types covered. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling get_file by name, so an agent must infer the search-vs-retrieve distinction.

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?

'Use this first when the user asks to find notes, images, videos, PDFs' gives a concrete trigger condition and the word 'first' implies a follow-up tool exists. However, it never names get_file or states when retrieval (rather than search) is the right choice, so the alternative is only suggested, not specified.

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