search_large

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 adds useful context that results are 'sorted by size (largest first),' but it does not disclose whether the search is recursive, whether directories are included, or the exact return format. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Find the largest files in a directory') followed by a practical use case and a key behavioral detail (sorting). Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy or irrelevant filler.

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 tool's low complexity, the description is mostly complete: it states what it does, the sorting behavior, and the primary use case. However, it omits information about recursion depth or output format, and there is no output schema to compensate. Minor gaps remain, but the description is adequate for typical use.

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% description coverage for all three parameters (path, minSizeMB, maxResults), including defaults and meanings. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline without going further.

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 primary function: 'Find the largest files in a directory.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the follow-up about sorting by size distinguishes it from sibling search tools that target by name, recency, extension, or path. This makes the purpose 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 provides clear use context: 'Useful for finding files that take up the most space.' This implies when to use it (e.g., disk cleanup). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with specific sibling tools, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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