search_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches for files but doesn't mention critical details like whether it's read-only, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., list format, error handling), or if there are rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a search tool with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, return values, or error cases, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively in this context.

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 50% (only 'pattern' has a description), so the description must compensate. It implies parameters for directory path and pattern but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining path formats or pattern syntax (e.g., wildcards). Since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Search for files') and resource ('in a directory matching a pattern'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'find_large_files', which also involve file operations, so it misses full differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't compare to 'list_directory' (which might list all files without filtering) or 'find_large_files' (which might focus on size-based searches), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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