search_files_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: no read-only confirmation, no pagination behavior for limit/offset, no result format, no rate limits. Two words cannot cover this for a 6-parameter search tool.

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?

Two words are not concise, they are under-specified. Brevity only earns credit when the content is complete; here essential information is simply absent rather than efficiently compressed.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 20 sibling tools including a near-duplicate search_folders_resources, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot call this correctly without opening the schema and guessing at pagination semantics.

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 only 33% (type and query are documented in Korean; sort, limit, order, offset are bare). With four undocumented parameters and zero parameter meaning added by the description, the agent must guess the sort/order/limit/offset contract entirely.

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?

"파일 검색" states a verb (검색/search) and a resource (파일/file), so the basic purpose is inferable. However, it gives no scope, no differentiation from the sibling search_folders_resources, and no indication of what kind of files or repositories are searched.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as search_folders_resources, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent has no basis for choosing this tool over its near-identical sibling.

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