glob_files

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it searches recursively and skips .git, node_modules, .venv, and __pycache__ directories. Since annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive, this is valuable complementary 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the action and examples. Each sentence provides necessary information—what the tool does and what it skips—with no filler or redundancy.

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 glob search tool, the description captures the primary use case, the recursive behavior, and directory exclusions. The schema fully documents parameters and annotations cover safety, making the definition complete for its complexity.

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 100%, with both 'path' and 'pattern' already described. The description reinforces parameter meaning with examples and the phrase 'base path,' but does not add meaningful new semantic information beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline 3.

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 it finds files matching a glob pattern, with concrete examples. The verb 'Find' plus resource 'files' and the pattern syntax distinguish it from content-search tools like grep_files, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 conveys clear usage context: use this for locating files by path pattern, with recursion and base path behavior. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it lacks the explicit exclusions needed for a 5.

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