find_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention search recursion, case sensitivity, hidden files, how limit affects results, or whether it respects ignore files. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core action, and the second adds a useful use-case hint. There is no waste or redundancy.

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 output schema covers return values, reducing the burden there. However, the description lacks parameter semantics and behavioral details, leaving gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It is minimally adequate for a simple tool but incomplete in important areas.

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%, and the description only mentions 'glob pattern' without explaining the expected syntax, the meaning of workspace, or the role of limit. It does not compensate for the missing schema parameter 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's specific action: 'Find repository files by glob pattern.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_repository_tree or read_file by focusing on pattern-based file discovery rather than tree navigation or content reading.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this when filenames, extensions or approximate locations are known.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or define when NOT to use it.

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