search_files

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully clarifies that only file names are searched (not contents) and that depth/results are bounded, but omits permission requirements, hidden-file behavior, result ordering, and error behavior.

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, efficiently front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is perhaps too terse for a tool with four undocumented parameters, but structurally clean.

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 search tool with no annotations, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, the definition is significantly under-specified. An agent knows the broad purpose but lacks enough detail on inputs and behavior to invoke it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It gestures at depth and result count, but never explains query, path, limit, or maxDepth semantics, formats, defaults, or bounds, leaving parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ("Search file names") scoped to an authorized root, which tells the agent it is a name-based file search rather than a content read or directory listing. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like list_directory, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Beneath an authorized root" implies the tool only works within allowed roots, giving some usage context. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer search_files over list_directory or how it relates to other listing tools, leaving selection to inference.

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