ds_search_files

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the search is recursive and that matches come back as JSON, but says nothing about permissions, result limits, pagination, or performance on large trees — real gaps for a recursive search tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the constraints and return format. No filler, though the wildcard example duplicates the schema and could be trimmed.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, path constraint, pattern syntax, and return format. Missing operational details (permissions, result caps/pagination) keep it from being fully complete.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the wildcard behavior. The description's one genuine addition is that the path 'must be an iRODS path' and that the root is a search root rather than a file, but otherwise it largely repeats the schema.

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 (search) and resource (files/data-objects, directories/collections) and nicely glosses the iRODS terminology. It differentiates implicitly by 'matching a pattern' versus the sibling ds_search_files_by_avu, but never names that sibling or any alternative.

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?

Gives practical usage detail (root path must be an iRODS path; use '?' and '*' wildcards), which implies the intended use. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives like ds_search_files_by_avu or ds_list_directory.

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