finder_search_files

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond them: a 10,000-visited-entry traversal cap, the fact it avoids the private search index, and an explicit 'permissions: none' claim.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the scope exclusion and metadata tag. Little waste; the version/permissions tag is arguably extraneous but small.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers scope, traversal bound, and a permission note; the only real gap is the unstated semantics of the limit parameter.

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 67%: path and query are documented in-schema, while limit has an empty description. The description reinforces that the query matches filenames, but it does not clarify the limit parameter or its distinction from the 10,000-entry traversal cap. Baseline 3 fits a schema doing most of the work.

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 (search) and resource (filenames) with a scope qualifier ('recursively within authorized root'), which implicitly separates it from directory-listing siblings like finder_list_files. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just short of full 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?

The recursion scope and 'does not access Raycast private search index' line imply when this tool applies versus other finders, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. finder_list_files for non-recursive listing). Usage must be inferred.

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