acc_search_folder

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that the search is recursive and matches exact name/type, and that it returns 'tip versions with their item (lineage) URNs,' but it does not disclose behaviors like pagination limits or performance characteristics. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, zero wasted words. The main purpose is stated first, followed by key output detail. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 tool has an output schema, readOnlyHint annotation, and 80% parameter description coverage. The description covers the core purpose, recursive behavior, exact matching, and output type. Minor gaps remain (e.g., page_number semantics) but are not critical given the schema. Overall, it is complete enough 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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description reinforces the meaning of name and file_type via 'exact name and/or type' and clarifies folder_id as recursive. However, page_number is not described in the schema or description, and the description adds no syntax-level detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search recursively under a folder for files by exact name and/or type.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like acc_list_folder (which likely lists folder contents without recursive search or exact matching) by specifying the scope and method.

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 usage: when you need to find files recursively by exact name or type. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., acc_list_folder for listing all files). The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative references.

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