search_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for added transparency is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by revealing the underlying mechanism (Spotlight/mdfind), performance trait (much faster than find, instant system-wide search), and platform restriction (macOS only). This goes beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a key advantage, usage directions, and platform constraint. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or filler.

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 search tool with four well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it. It includes platform, usage scope, and the search mechanism. While the return format is not described, the tool's output is unambiguous (file paths), and no output schema exists so it is not mandatory.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (kind, limit, query, scope) already have detailed descriptions in the schema. The description reinforces that searches can be by name, content, or type, which maps to the query and kind parameters, but it does not add new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides.

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 purpose: 'Search for files using macOS Spotlight (mdfind)' and specifies the resource (macOS files), the action (search), and the scope (by name, content keywords, or type). It differentiates from sibling tools like find_large_files and grep_files by emphasizing system-wide instant search and macOS-only availability.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use for finding files by name, content keywords, or type' and notes 'macOS only'. It also implies a preference over 'find' due to speed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., if a non-indexed search is needed) or name alternative tools for those cases.

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