Find Largest Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds a note about cleanup opportunities, which is a helpful contextual nuance, but does not disclose details like sorting order or whether paths are returned absolute or relative. Given the strong annotation coverage, the description provides adequate but not comprehensive behavioral context.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loading the core action ('Find the largest files') before adding a brief use case. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of information already present in the schema or annotations.

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 simple read-only tool, the description plus annotations and schema cover the essential aspects: what it does, the parameters, and safety. It lacks an explicit statement of output format (beyond the response_format parameter) or sorting behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation.

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 documents all four parameters with descriptions, and the tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 75%, the baseline for adding value is moderate, and the description's contribution here is minimal—it only reinforces the purpose.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and a specific resource ('the largest files in a directory'), making the purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes this tool from siblings like find_duplicate_files or scan_directory by focusing on file size rather than content or structure.

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?

It provides a use case ('identifying space-consuming files and cleanup opportunities') but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, leaving the agent to infer that this is the tool for size-based searches.

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