Search Files

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds that it returns full paths, recursively searches, and is limited to allowed directories. It does not mention hidden files or case sensitivity, but it is sufficient for a read-only 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?

The description is a single paragraph of five sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds necessary information without verbosity.

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 description covers the search behavior, pattern syntax, and allowed scope. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. It is fairly complete, but could mention the role of the path parameter and the excludePatterns functionality.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the pattern parameter in detail with examples but does not explain the path parameter (the starting directory) or the excludePatterns parameter. Thus it adds meaning for one key parameter but leaves gaps for others.

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 it recursively searches for files and directories matching a glob-style pattern, and the verb 'search_files' combined with the explanation differentiates it from siblings like list_directory and get_file_info. It is specific about pattern types and scope.

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 clear context: 'Great for finding files when you don't know their exact location' and notes it only searches within allowed directories. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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