find_files_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful constraint (searches only 'trusted' roots), but says nothing about whether results are capped by default, how they are ordered, or that this is a read-only operation.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key scoping constraint front-loaded and no wasted words. Brevity here costs clarity elsewhere, but the sentence itself is well-formed.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the two optional parameters that control result volume and search scope are left entirely undefined, and there is no guidance on tool selection among many search_* siblings.

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 0% for three parameters. The description explains 'name' as a filename or substring, but 'limit' (default 15) and 'under' (path scope, presumably) are completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (files by filename or substring) and scopes it to 'trusted workspace roots'. Clear enough to act on, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_workspace_roots_tool or search_bounded_tool.

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?

No indication of when to prefer this over list_workspace_roots_tool (which presumably enumerates roots) or the other search_* siblings. The agent must infer that this is a filename lookup rather than a content search.

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