remote_find

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses backend behavior (fd-find, falling back to find) and a performance characteristic, which is real value beyond the schema. But it says nothing about the read-only nature, permissions/auth requirements, symlink or path traversal behavior, or the shape of results, so key behavioral traits are left unstated.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and then the differentiator. Every clause (find by name, fd-find, find fallback, faster than recursive list) earns its place.

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 four-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the operation and its performance rationale adequately. The one notable gap is the absence of any contrast with remote_search, which an agent needs in order to choose correctly among siblings.

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 100%, so all four parameters (path, type, pattern, maxResults) are already documented in the schema, including defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as regex flavor, matching semantics, or path scoping, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('在远端按文件名查找') and even names the implementation (fd-find, with find fallback), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It differentiates from remote_list by noting it is much faster for recursion, but never distinguishes itself from the sibling remote_search, which is a plausible alternative for content-based lookup.

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 comparison '比 remote_list 递归快得多' implicitly steers the agent away from recursively listing when hunting for files by name. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of remote_search, the sibling most likely to be confused with it, so the routing is only implied.

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