查找文件

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: recursion and automatic skipping of common build directories. However, it does not disclose the result format, matching semantics, or treatment of hidden files, so it only partially carries the burden in the absence of an output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the core behavior and the key caveat (build directories are skipped). Every word earns its place; there is no filler.

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?

For a 4-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete: it leaves usage guidance, result shape, and pattern matching semantics to be inferred. The presence of sibling tools like search_text makes the missing comparison more noticeable.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully maps 'path fragment' to pattern and 'extension' to extensions, but it does not explain pattern matching syntax, whether extensions need leading dots, or any semantics for path/limit beyond what the schema defaults already convey.

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 action ('recursively find files') with clear criteria ('by path fragment and extension') and a distinguishing behavioral detail (skips common build directories). This clearly separates it from content-search tools like search_text and non-recursive listing tools like list_directory.

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: use this tool when you need to locate files by path segment or extension rather than by file contents. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives such as search_text, list_directory, or read_many_files, and it gives no exclusion conditions.

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