Search files by name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is established. The description adds recursion and glob matching behavior, but does not disclose traversal details such as hidden files, symlink handling, ordering, or how max_results affects results. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence conveys the core action, recursion, and matching semantics with a concrete glob example. There is no filler, no repetition of schema fields, and no unnecessary detail.

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 read-only file search with an output schema, core behavior is sufficiently covered. However, root and max_results semantics are undocumented, and there is no guidance to disambiguate from sibling search tools, leaving the agent to infer important invocation details.

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% for three parameters. The description clarifies 'pattern' by giving a glob example like *.log, but 'root' and 'max_results' are left to inference from their parameter names. The description only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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?

"Recursively find files whose name matches a glob pattern" states a specific verb, resource, and matching mechanism. It distinguishes file-name/glob search from content or web search, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like find_files_tool or fuzzy_find_tool.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when you want to find files by name using a glob pattern. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives like search_text_tool or fuzzy_find_tool, leaving disambiguation to the agent.

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