glob

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the gitignore-skipping default, that patterns resolve relative to path, and that results are paged via offset. It omits the default result cap and any ordering/symlink behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose first, then behavioral caveats, then paging. No filler, no repetition of schema 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the critical calling semantics (pattern syntax, base path, gitignore default, paging) are present. The undocumented max_results cap is the one thing an agent might want before calling.

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 must compensate, and it covers four of five parameters: pattern, path, respect_gitignore, and offset. Only max_results goes unexplained, which is a minor gap against a strong compensation effort.

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 ('Find files by glob pattern') and gives a concrete example pattern plus the resolution base ('relative to path'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like grep or list_dir, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides some operational guidance – gitignore behavior by default and paging via offset – but never says when to prefer this over grep, list_dir, or read_file. Usage context is implied (file discovery) rather than stated with alternatives.

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