file_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are 'relative paths within the sandbox', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as recursion semantics (implicitly via glob), hidden file handling, or error/empty results 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the purpose and gives an example; the second clarifies the output format and scope. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete for a simple search tool. It states what it returns and the sandbox scope. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no statement about case sensitivity or hidden files), but these are not critical for basic usage.

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?

The schema already describes the pattern parameter with the same example ('**/*.ts'). The description adds no information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The example in the description is redundant with the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search for files matching a glob pattern' with a concrete example. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_list or file_read, and the 'Returns relative paths within the sandbox' scopes the operation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention file_list or other siblings, nor does it describe criteria for choosing search over listing or reading. The example pattern is helpful but not usage guidance.

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