files/find

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'Search for files' without explaining recursion, default path, permission requirements, or return format. It does not mention that the search is recursive or that it can search as root (privileged parameter). The description is essentially a bare statement of the tool's core action, lacking behavioral context.

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 one short sentence, which is concise and not bloated. However, it is so minimal that it lacks structure and fails to front-load critical information like the fact that it searches recursively or the available filters. It is appropriately sized for a very simple tool, but for a tool with 9 parameters it is under-specified.

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?

This is a complex tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not mention the output format, the meaning of parameters beyond the schema, or any usage context. It is completely inadequate for an agent to understand how to effectively use the tool, such as knowing that 'path' defaults to '/' or that 'privileged' requires special permissions.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, each with a clear explanation (e.g., name, size, type). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics; it does not explain how parameters interact or provide examples. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate or add value 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 'Search for files in a directory hierarchy' clearly states the action (search) and resource (files) with a specific scope (directory hierarchy). It is distinct from sibling tools like files/list (which lists contents) and files/read (which reads a file), though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. The verb and resource are specific enough to convey the purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus files/list or other alternatives. The description does not mention that this tool is for recursive search or that it supports filters like size or mtime. No context is provided for typical use cases or exclusions.

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