search_files

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'mdfind' and 'filtering options' but fails to disclose key traits like macOS dependency, indexing behavior, or performance implications. The schema provides a note on case sensitivity, which helps slightly.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It could be more specific about capabilities but is appropriately short for a simple search tool.

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 the presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks context like platform restrictions (macOS only) or limitations, making it minimally complete for an agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it repeats 'filtering options' without detailing parameters. No value added.

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 clearly states it searches files using macOS mdfind with filtering options, providing a specific verb and resource. However, with no sibling tools for comparison, it doesn't achieve maximum distinctiveness.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The absence of siblings reduces the need for differentiation, but still lacks any usage direction.

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