search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the backend implementation ('using locate') and that matches can be counted or limited to existing files, but says nothing about permissions, performance on large filesystems, error behavior, or result ordering.

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?

It is front-loaded and headed clearly, but a large portion duplicates flag semantics already present in the schema (e.g. -i, -c, -r) and repeats the same examples in two formats. Roughly a third of the text is redundant with structured data.

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?

The tool has a nested parameter object and no output schema, so the description should explain what comes back. It never states the result format, ordering, or how max_results truncates, and it omits how regex_search interacts with the wildcard syntax it documents.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by documenting pattern syntax (wildcards, character classes) and concrete regex examples, which the schema's one-line 'query' description does not provide.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource: a file search tool, scoped to Linux, backed by locate. That is enough for an agent to know what the tool does, though the 'Universal ... for Linux' phrasing is slightly self-contradictory and no sibling tools exist to differentiate against.

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 is rich on how to construct a search (flags, wildcards, examples) but gives no task-level when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternatives to prefer. Usage is only implied by the fact that it is a file searcher.

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