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 discloses recursive search, case-insensitivity, advanced glob support, return of full paths, traversal of all subdirectories, and restriction to allowed directories. This is substantial context beyond basic 'search files' and provides enough transparency for an agent to anticipate 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 somewhat verbose and repetitive (mentions 'glob patterns' multiple times, repeats 'searches'). It also includes the unrelated 'FIXED VERSION' prefix, which is noise. However, the core purpose is front-loaded and the examples are useful. It could be tightened without losing information.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors: recursion, glob matching, case-insensitivity, path return, and allowed directory restrictions. It lacks details on excludePatterns and edge cases, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide to invoke the tool and understand what to expect.

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%, so the description must clarify the parameters. It explains 'path' as the starting path (via 'from the starting path') and 'pattern' as the glob pattern, with examples. However, it does not mention 'excludePatterns' at all, leaving one of three parameters undocumented. The description adds value for two parameters but misses the third.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Recursively search for files and directories matching a glob pattern.' It provides concrete glob examples and differentiates from sibling tools like list_directory by emphasizing searching by pattern rather than listing a directory. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 explicitly says 'Great for finding files when you don't know their exact location,' giving a clear use case. It also notes the constraint 'Only searches within allowed directories.' While it doesn't name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, the context makes the appropriate usage clear.

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