file_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses key behaviors: recursive search, use of PowerShell Get-ChildItem, and output of absolute paths. It does not mention edge cases like hidden files or search limits, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main action, includes concrete pattern examples, and ends with output expectations. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with 3 parameters (1 required), full schema coverage, and a description that covers purpose, use cases, behavior, and return format ('absolute path of each matching file'). No output schema is present, but the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage with examples for pattern, directory, and max_results. The description does not add new parameter-specific information beyond reinforcing the glob pattern concept. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for files on this Windows PC by name pattern (glob/wildcard).' It specifies the resource (files) and verb (search), and distinguishes from siblings like dir_list (which lists directory contents) by emphasizing recursive pattern matching.

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 use cases: 'find misplaced files, locate all files with a specific extension, discover configuration files, or audit files in a directory.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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