Fuzzy find files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: matching is by subsequence (not substring or glob) and results are ranked by 'match compactness', which is a non-obvious behavior not visible in the schema. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core action ('Subsequence filename search') and immediately adds the distinguishing ranking behavior. Every word contributes value; there is no repetition or filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema and read-only annotations, so return values and safety are covered. However, the description omits parameter semantics and usage guidance, and gives no hints about path handling or query formatting. For a simple read-only search tool this is acceptable but not fully 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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. The names 'root', 'query', and 'max_results' are somewhat self-explanatory, but their precise semantics—such as whether root is a directory path or path prefix, what query syntax is expected, and how max_results limits output—are left entirely to inference.

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 ('search'), resource ('filename'), and defines the matching algorithm ('subsequence') plus ranking criterion ('match compactness'). This clearly distinguishes it from content-search tools like search_text_tool and from exact/glob-based finders like find_files_tool, even without naming them explicitly.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as find_files_tool, file_search, or search_text_tool. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, so the agent must infer usage context from the tool name and one-line description.

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