search_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that it searches using Spotlight. It does not mention return format, whether results are paths or file objects, potential limitations of Spotlight, or any side effects. The absence of this information forces the agent to infer behavior from the tool name and 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the primary sentence, followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition. The structure is easy to parse and directly supports invocation.

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 is simple and has an output schema, so the return format is presumably covered elsewhere. However, the description omits context such as the default search scope when 'location' is omitted, how results are sorted, and any prerequisites. While it is adequate for basic invocation, it feels incomplete for a thorough agent.

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 compensate. The Args section explicitly explains 'query' (search query), 'location' (optional folder path), and 'kind' (optional file type filter with example values). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare property names and types, fully covering all parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search for files using Spotlight.' This provides a specific verb (search), resource (files), and method (Spotlight), making it distinct from all sibling tools. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention related tools like reveal_in_finder or get_selected_files, nor does it specify scenarios where the user should prefer search_files over other file-related tools. This leaves the decision solely to the agent.

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