Find File

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying 'non-gitignored files' (exclusion behavior) and the return format ('JSON object with the list of matching files'), but does not mention potential limitations like recursion depth or performance implications.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality and includes essential details (exclusion of gitignored files, return format) without any wasted 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, key behavioral trait (non-gitignored), and return format, leaving detailed parameter and output documentation to the structured fields.

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 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the search scope and exclusion of gitignored files, but does not provide additional syntax or format details for the parameters.

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 specific action ('Finds'), resource ('non-gitignored files'), and scope ('matching the given file mask within the given relative path'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_dir' (which lists directory contents) and 'search_for_pattern' (which searches file content).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching for files by name/mask, excluding gitignored files), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'list_dir' for directory listing or 'search_for_pattern' for content search.

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