find

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool performs a glob search (likely read-only) and is paginated via cursor, which implies idempotency. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no destructive side effects, which would be helpful for an agent's decision-making.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the primary action ('Glob search names design-wide'), then adds detail about dot patterns, kind values, and pagination. Every sentence provides value, with no unnecessary words.

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?

Despite the tool having no output schema, the description does not explain what the search results look like (names, paths, or IDs). It also fails to mention whether the search is case-sensitive, matches partial names, or returns exact matches. For a search tool, these details are important for effective use.

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 explain parameter meanings. It explains 'pattern' as a glob search (including the special meaning of dots for paths) and 'kind' by listing valid values. However, it only mentions pagination via 'cursor' without explaining how to use the 'limit' or 'cursor' parameters, leaving two of four parameters partially documented. This is insufficient for a tool with no schema descriptions.

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 glob search for names design-wide, specifying that a pattern with a dot matches full paths. It lists the valid kinds (instance, net, port, module, any), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'resolve' or 'trace_cone' that might also involve searching.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions pagination via cursor but does not explain the typical use case or prerequisites. There is no indication of when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer context without explicit direction.

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