search_files

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 only states the basic action but fails to mention key behaviors such as whether only filenames are matched (not content), how results are ordered, whether symlinks are followed, or what happens when no matches are found. The recursive and max_results parameters are documented in the schema, but the description adds no additional context about the tool's operational quirks or output format.

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, concise sentence: 'Search for files matching a glob pattern.' It is front-loaded with the action and purpose, contains no fluff, and every word contributes meaning. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a well-documented schema.

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 simplicity and the presence of a comprehensive schema and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It correctly identifies the tool's core function, which allows an agent to select it for pattern-based file searches. However, it lacks any usage context relative to sibling tools like list_directory or tree, and does not mention the recursive behavior or result limits, which are only available in the schema. This makes it moderately complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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 input schema provides full coverage (100%) with descriptions for all four parameters, including defaults and examples. The description does not add any semantic value beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the schema's already complete documentation. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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's function: 'Search for files matching a glob pattern.' This uses a specific verb (search) and resource (files) with a precise matching criterion. It distinguishes from siblings like list_directory or tree by emphasizing pattern-based search rather than simple 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. It does not mention that list_directory is for full listings or that tree provides hierarchical views. No exclusions or preferred scenarios are given, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name.

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