finder_search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the Spotlight/mdfind backend and that path= scopes the search. However, it does not describe return format, indexing limitations, or whether hidden files are included, leaving notable gaps.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence. It wastes no words, states the core behavior first, and appends the useful scoping detail in a clear secondary clause.

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?

This is a simple tool, but the description omits how the actual search term is passed, which is essential for invocation. It also lacks any return-value or output-shape information, and the path= parameter is not represented in the input schema, leaving an important invocation gap.

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 schema has zero declared parameters, but the description mentions passing path= to scope the search. This adds meaning beyond the schema, yet it conflicts with the empty property list and does not clarify how the main search query should be supplied.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it searches for files by name on this Mac, with an explicit note that it uses mdfind/Spotlight. It also distinguishes the operation from other file tools by highlighting name-based, system-wide search and optional folder scoping.

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 it for file-name searches anywhere on the Mac, or scope to a folder with path=. It does not list exclusions or name alternative tools, but the intended use case is apparent.

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