Find Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the query-bound snapshot semantics and 60-second expiry for pagination cursors, which is behavioral context beyond the structured fields. 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and return shape, pagination snapshot behavior, and sibling routing. Zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before secondary details.

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 an 8-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essentials: purpose, return shape ('matched paths with optional metadata'), pagination semantics, and alternatives. No output schema exists, but the description gives a reasonable return-shape hint. Slightly more detail on return format would push it to a 5, but nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters with examples (e.g., '**/*.ts') and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides; the baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('find files matching a glob pattern') with a clear scope. It also names the siblings it is not (search_text for content, replace_text for regex replacement), so an agent can distinguish it from the most confusable tools without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives: 'For content search use search_text; for bulk regex replacements use replace_text with the same glob.' This tells the agent exactly when not to use this tool and which sibling to pick instead.

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