search_files

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'search files' without disclosing any behavioral traits, such as whether it is read-only, if it modifies anything, performance implications, or authentication requirements. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise at 4 characters, but it is under-specified. It does not include any additional information beyond the tool name's translation, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's purpose. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how results are formatted, or any side effects. The agent would lack critical context for using the tool effectively.

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%, with all three parameters having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '搜索文件' translates to 'search files', which clearly states the action and resource. However, it is essentially a translation of the tool name and does not provide additional specificity or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'read_file'. It is not a tautology per se but lacks the detail expected for a clear purpose.

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?

There are no usage guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. This leaves the agent without guidance on appropriate contexts.

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