lookup_tb_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read-style query over the compiled file set, that a filter is mandatory, and that basename-collision information overlaps with build_tb_hierarchy. It does not discuss pagination, error behavior, or return shape, but these are secondary for a query tool and the core behavior is clear.

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?

Three short sentences that front-load the action and resource, then state the constraint, then give the primary use case. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

This is an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to carry more weight. It omits return behavior, filter-combination semantics, and the meaning of the required handle parameter. The stated use case is helpful, but an agent would still be guessing about important invocation details.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. In particular, the required 'handle' parameter is never explained, and 'limit', 'name_contains', and 'path_contains' also lack meaning beyond their names. The 'at least one filter' constraint is useful but does not clarify whether handle counts as a filter or what formats are expected.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('compiled file set'), then gives a concrete purpose: disambiguating multi-version files. It also references a related reporting channel, build_tb_hierarchy.ambiguous_basenames, which helps distinguish it from sibling lookup tools.

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 explicitly states that at least one filter is required and recommends this tool for disambiguating multi-version files, mentioning that basename collisions are also surfaced by another tool. It does not enumerate exclusions or explicitly say when to prefer other siblings, so it stops short of a full 5.

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