dropbox_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral clue — matching is against names, not file contents — but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or whether folders/subfolders are included.

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 with no wasted words. It is arguably too terse for a search tool that could carry scope or pagination caveats, but nothing in it is redundant.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and full parameter documentation in the schema, so the description is minimally adequate. It leaves open whether content search, path scoping, or result ordering applies — details an agent might reasonably need when composing a query.

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%, so query, limit, and access_token are already fully documented. The phrase 'by name' reinforces the query semantics but adds no new detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Dropbox for files and folders') with a clear matching criterion ('by name'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools like dropbox_list_folder, so the distinction must be inferred, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 given on when to choose this over dropbox_list_folder or dropbox_read_file, nor on prerequisites such as scope/permissions of the access token. The 'by name' phrase implies a use case but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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