ds_search_files_by_avu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that results come back in JSON, but says nothing about whether AVU matching is exact or wildcard, whether permission filtering applies, result limits/pagination, or what an empty result looks like. For an unannotated search tool this is a notable gap.

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 sentences with the core action front-loaded and the return format appended. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical glossary adds only mild value.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials but omits matching semantics, scoping/limits, and result behavior. It is minimally viable rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the two required parameters (attribute, value), so the schema already documents them. The description restates that search uses 'specified attribute and value' but adds no semantics beyond the schema, such as matching behavior or case sensitivity; baseline 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 gives a specific verb (Search), resource (files/data-objects and directories/collections), and mechanism (iRODS AVU attribute-value matching). It clearly tells the agent what is searched and on what basis, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search tools like ds_search_files or ds_search_metadata.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as ds_search_files, ds_search_metadata, or ds_list_avus. The agent must infer that this tool applies only when it already has an attribute-value pair, which is implied but never stated.

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