Find Files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses useful behavior: result ordering (newest first), a default limit of 10 with a hard cap of 25, and that results are content:// URIs. It does not mention permission requirements, empty-result behavior, or cost/performance, so it is not complete, but it goes well beyond the bare schema.

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?

Dense, front-loaded and free of filler, with the primary mode stated first and the path-based alternative last. The telegraphic 'kind: image | video | ...' fragment is compact but slightly terse for a prose description.

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-value detail is not required, and the tool is a moderately complex 6-parameter search. However, two parameters (device, max_depth) are undocumented in both schema and description, and the path-vs-index interaction could be clearer, so an agent lacks full information to invoke it precisely.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most parameters: 'kind' enum values (image | video | audio | document | any), 'limit' default and cap, 'path' semantics, and 'query' implied by searching 'by name'. 'device' and 'max_depth' receive no explanation anywhere, leaving two of six parameters opaque.

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 ('Search the device's media index by name') plus scope (images, videos, audio, documents) and ordering (newest first). It is clearly distinguishable from screen/UI siblings like find_nodes or perceive_screen, and it names the downstream consumer (open_file) of its results.

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 clear operating context: default search covers media types with downloads included, and supplying 'path' switches to a shared-storage folder search of any file type. It links output to open_file as the follow-up tool, but never states when NOT to use this versus alternatives like web_search or list_apps.

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