search_in_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'much faster than recursive directory scans' as a behavioral trait, but omits details like default recursion (true), result limits (50), or any permissions/side effects. Basic search behavior is implied, but not richly disclosed.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a usage cue and performance benefit. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core use case and differentiates from siblings. Missing explicit guidance on when not to use (e.g., vs search_by_extension) but overall sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, such as pattern syntax or edge cases. It neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 tool's function: 'Search for files within a specific directory.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('files within a directory'). It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing directory-scoped search and speed advantage over recursive scans.

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 'Use this to limit search scope to a particular folder,' providing clear when-to-use context. It implies alternatives exist (e.g., other search tools) but does not name them or state when not to use. Still, the usage cue is actionable.

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