finder_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It mentions using mdfind/Spotlight, implying a read-only and non-destructive operation, but does not disclose potential limitations such as reliance on Spotlight index or performance characteristics.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It contains no superfluous information and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and method.

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 the lack of parameters and output schema, the description is fairly complete. It clearly states what the tool does and how it works. However, it could be improved by indicating the format of returned results or any prerequisites.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description cannot add value beyond the schema. Per the rubric, zero parameters sets a baseline of 4, and the description does not detract from that.

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 searches files by name using mdfind/Spotlight, specifying the scope 'anywhere on the filesystem'. It effectively conveys the primary function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'fs_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. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'fs_search'.

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