find_recipe_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions recursive searching and filename matching, but lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, output format, or performance considerations (e.g., depth limits, large directory handling). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes all essential elements (search type, file types, matching criteria, scope), making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 (recursive file search), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic operation but omits details on return values, error cases, and behavioral nuances that would help an agent use it correctly in varied contexts. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('root_path' and 'query') adequately. The description adds minimal value by reinforcing that 'root_path' is the directory to search under and 'query' matches against filenames, but does not provide additional syntax, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline 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 specific action ('Search recursively'), target resources ('.bb/.bbappend files'), and scope ('under root_path'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'parse_recipe_file' (which parses rather than searches) and 'scan_layer_recipe_files' (which may have different scoping). It uses precise technical terminology that aligns with the tool's domain.

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 implies usage for finding recipe files by filename substring matching, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_layer_recipe_files' or 'get_recipe_var_raw'. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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