file_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Find files') but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, performance implications, error handling, or output format. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place in conveying the core purpose.

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 complexity of a file search tool with nested parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., file paths, metadata), how results are formatted, or any limitations. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more complete context 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('pattern' and 'options') thoroughly. The description mentions 'glob patterns' which aligns with the schema but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Find') and resource ('files matching glob patterns in the workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'grep_search' or 'list_tree', which might have overlapping functionality for file searching or listing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'grep_search' or 'list_tree'. It lacks context about specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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