workspace_find_files

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

Annotations declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds operational traits beyond annotations: recursive traversal, case-sensitive matching, and skipping of dot directories and symlinks. These are useful behavioral details.

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 tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the core function and followed by necessary pattern semantics. No wasted sentences.

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?

Given a simple two-parameter schema, existing annotations, and an output schema that handles return values, the description covers the essential operational details. Only the 'path' parameter's default and role could be made more explicit, a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains pattern semantics ('/'-based basename vs path matching) and implicitly defines the search directory role of 'path'. While the 'path' parameter itself is not explicitly described, the description provides substantial meaning for the pattern parameter.

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 (find), resource (file paths), and method (recursive case-sensitive glob). It distinguishes itself from text-search siblings by focusing on path discovery, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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 provides pattern-matching semantics but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like workspace_list or workspace_text_search. Usage is implied by the glob-based purpose, but tool selection remains unaddressed.

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