search_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only explains the matching rule (case-insensitive substring or glob) but omits details like whether the search is recursive, the default search root (res://), or how max_results limits output. No information is given about return format or failure modes.

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, front-loaded sentence of 11 words conveys the core functionality with zero waste. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., file paths, matches) and how it behaves with no results. It also does not explain the input schema fields beyond the query, leaving the tool under-specified for an agent to invoke correctly in varied contexts.

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 compensate for all four parameters. It only clarifies the semantics of 'query' (matching pattern), but leaves 'path', 'file_type', and 'max_results' without explanation. The defaults are visible in the schema, but their meaning (e.g., file_type as extension filter, max_results as a cap) is not disclosed.

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 uses the specific verb 'search' with the resource 'project file names', and clarifies the matching method as 'case-insensitive substring or glob pattern'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_in_files, which presumably search file contents.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not contrast with the sibling search_in_files, and there is no mention of scenarios where file-name search is preferable to content search or other file-related tools.

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