Search Project Files

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, but the description adds critical behavioral details: recursive defaults to false, '**' glob does not descend without recursive=true, scope differences (SUBTREE vs ANCESTORS), client-side pagination behavior, and branch pinning semantics. 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?

The description is well-structured with the core purpose first, followed by important caveats and examples. While it is detailed, every sentence serves a purpose. It could be slightly trimmed (e.g., the 'IMPORTANT' warning could be shorter) but overall is efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (matching nodes with path, name, type, size, pagination metadata). It covers all key parameters, behaviors, and use cases. The examples and notes on recursive and scope make the tool fully understandable for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 86% (high), so baseline is 3. However, the description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the recursive parameter's critical nuance (default false, '**' need recursive), scope behavior, pagination metadata, and provides example patterns. This justifies a 5.

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 searches project files and folders by multiple criteria (ant-glob pattern, extensions, type, content substring). It includes a concrete mapping to the API endpoint and gives example queries that distinguish it from sibling tools like listing or reading files.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (e.g., 'where is portability loading mentioned?', 'list every xlsx under rules') and provides examples. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling tool list and the specific use cases imply its niche. Given the clarity of the examples, a 4 is appropriate.

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