search_files

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

Annotations provide readOnly and openWorld, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds implementation context ('Uses Jottacloud liststream when possible, then a capped folder walk'), which hints at performance and possible result limits, but the cap is unspecified and return/error behavior is not disclosed.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose. The implementation detail is compressed but adds value without bloat; however the sentence is slightly dense with jargon ('liststream', 'capped folder walk') and could be clearer with a little structure.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what results look like and any cap behavior; it only mentions a 'capped folder walk' with no limit, return format, or error conditions. For a search tool whose completeness may be limited, this is a meaningful 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 description coverage is 100%; both `query` and `path` are already described in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('file and folder names') with a scope ('under a path'), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_directory, but the search-by-name behavior is evident from the first clause and name.

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 phrasing implies the tool is for finding files/folders by name under a path, but it never states when to prefer it over siblings like list_directory or list_roots, nor gives exclusion criteria. No alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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