search_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses two important constraints: returned paths are exact and must be reused verbatim, and by default only unique files are returned. These add significant clarity beyond what the schema conveys, though it does not cover all potential behaviors (e.g., recursion, authorization).

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second gives a critical usage constraint, and the third notes the default behavior. There is no wordiness or repetition.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It conveys essential constraints but omits details about the 'query' and 'max_results' parameters and does not fully describe the return format. However, it does provide enough for basic usage, and the noted constraints are crucial.

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. It partially explains the 'path' parameter via 'below connection:/path' and the 'files_only' parameter via 'By default return unique files only', but it does not mention 'query' or 'max_results' at all. Users must infer that 'query' is the search term, and max_results is unexplained.

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 performs a search operation 'below connection:/path', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_items (which likely lists items) and get_item_info (which retrieves specific item info). While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the verb 'search' and the scoping to a path are specific enough to convey the primary purpose.

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 implies usage when searching below a given path, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_items or read_document. It provides no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so guidance is mostly implicit.

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