search_files

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about the shared-directory scope and non-full-text behavior, but it does not clarify recursion, case sensitivity, or hidden-file handling.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the negative qualifier is placed second for immediate disambiguation.

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 three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and available sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain path and limit semantics, the type of results returned, or how this relates to list_files and read_file beyond the abstract distinction.

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, but it only hints at the meaning of query via 'find files by name.' It says nothing about path or limit, leaving two of three parameters effectively undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Find files by name inside the shared directory.' It also draws a clear boundary with 'not a full-text search,' making the tool's scope easily distinguishable from list_files and read_file.

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 when to use the tool by saying it finds files by name, and it offers an exclusion by stating it is not full-text search. However, it never names sibling alternatives or explicitly says when to prefer list_files or read_file.

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