file_search

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

The description discloses matching behavior (case-insensitive, partial) and that it starts from a root directory, but it doesn't explain how the root directory is determined given the input schema has zero parameters, nor what the return format is. With no annotations, this ambiguity is a significant gap.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key matching behavior. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description should clarify return values and operational context (e.g., scope of 'root directory'). It provides only basic search semantics, leaving significant ambiguity for a tool with no parameters.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds the concept of a 'root directory' which is not a parameter, but there is no parameter information to clarify further.

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 searches for files and folders by name, with case-insensitive and partial matching details. It identifies a specific verb and resource, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like finder_search.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like file_list or finder_search. No prerequisites or context for invocation are mentioned, leaving the agent without sufficient direction.

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