finder_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the allowlist and Spotlight, but fails to disclose how the tool works with zero parameters (how the file name is specified), the scope of the allowlist, potential failure modes (e.g., Spotlight disabled), or the return format. This makes behavior opaque.

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, efficient sentence that leads with the core action and includes a parenthetical implementation note. Every part earns its place; no redundancy or excessive length.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description leaves critical gaps: no explanation of how the search query is supplied (given empty schema), no definition of the 'allowlist,' and no output schema or return behavior. A zero-parameter tool needs more context to be usable, so this is incomplete.

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 0 parameters and the schema has 100% coverage (empty), so the description is not required to document parameter details. The baseline for 0 params is 4; no substantial deduction since nothing is missing from the schema side.

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 uses a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('files by name'), and adds scoping context ('within the allowlist') and implementation detail ('uses mdfind/Spotlight'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_search or finder_list.

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 intended use is implied ('search for files by name'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The 'allowlist' hint suggests a restriction but doesn't instruct the agent on selection.

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