glob_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool returns paths recursively, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose potential performance impact on large directory trees, response format details (sorted, absolute vs relative), or any limitations (e.g., hidden files, symlinks). Despite this, the essential behavior is well communicated.

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 sentence with no wasted words. The essential information (return paths, glob pattern, recursive) is front-loaded and clear. Every word carries meaning.

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 a simple tool with 1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is minimally complete. It does not specify return value semantics (e.g., what happens if no matches, absolute paths, sorted order) but the output schema likely handles details. It meets the basic bar for a list-tool with good schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single parameter whose description gives an example pattern. The tool description adds only the word 'recursive' beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents the parameter adequately and the description adds marginal value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('file paths matching a glob pattern'), and conveys an important behavioral trait ('recursive') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_dir', 'grep', and 'search_text'. It clearly indicates the tool's function of path pattern matching.

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 description implies the tool is for pattern-based file discovery, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings like 'list_dir', 'grep', or 'search_text'. No alternative tool mentions or exclusion criteria are given, so usage context is only inferred.

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