search_by_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose useful search semantics: substring match, case-insensitive matching, and a default result limit. However, it leaves 'related to a file path' somewhat ambiguous and does not describe sorting, pagination, or no-match behavior.

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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and then gives only relevant parameter details. No filler or redundant prose appears.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the core behavior and parameters are sufficiently covered. The main missing piece is guidance on selecting this tool among sibling search tools, but that is largely a usage-guidance concern.

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%, but the description thoroughly documents both parameters. It explains that file_path is a case-insensitive substring search and that limit caps the number of results, adding meaning well beyond the raw schema types and default.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it finds all memories matching a file path. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_memories and find_similar, whose names suggest broader or similarity-based search.

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?

The intended use is implied: call this when you need memories related to a file path. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over search_memories or find_similar, and it gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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