Find files

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It contributes one useful implementation trait — 'fd preferred with find/pathlib fallback' — signaling environment-adaptive execution. But it says nothing about recursion behavior, hidden-file handling, or what happens when root does not exist or is unreadable.

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?

One sentence, purpose verb front-loaded, followed by a compact implementation note — no wasted words. The 'fd preferred with find/pathlib fallback' parenthetical is terse jargon that may be cryptic to some agents, but it earns its place as the sole behavioral disclosure.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema and a read-only annotation, the definition is minimally adequate. The notable gap is contextual: the sibling list contains at least four overlapping file-discovery tools, and the description does nothing to position find_files_tool among them, nor does it cover edge cases like missing roots or result truncation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and bare titles ('Root', 'Pattern', 'Max Results'), the description bears the full burden of explaining parameters. It adds the essential fact that pattern is a glob expression, which is critical for correct invocation. However, it leaves root's exact meaning (starting directory vs. file) and max_results's truncation role undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('find'), resource ('files'), and method ('by glob'), making it clear this is filename-pattern discovery rather than content search or directory listing. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many file-related siblings (file_search, fuzzy_find_tool, directory_tree), relying on the 'glob' qualifier alone to carry that differentiation.

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 exclusions, and no alternatives named despite a sibling list crowded with overlapping tools like file_search, fuzzy_find_tool, search_text_tool, and list_directory. The 'by glob' phrase only implies that this is for pattern-based filename matching; the agent must infer the selection criteria against siblings entirely on its own.

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