file_search

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 only says 'search for files' without revealing what is returned (paths, matches, counts), whether the search is recursive, how multiple criteria are combined (AND/OR), or any performance implications. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's 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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then lists criteria. There is no wasted verbiage. It could be slightly clearer, but it earns high marks for efficiency.

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?

Despite 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It leaves critical questions unanswered: return format, recursion behavior, combination logic, and edge cases. An agent would need to make assumptions or probe the tool to use it correctly. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100% (every parameter has a description), so baseline is 3. The description adds some value by grouping criteria into 'size range' and 'date range', which implies relationships between min/max_size and modified_before/after. It also provides glob/regex context for name_pattern and content_pattern. However, it does not explain how parameters interact or any defaults beyond what the schema already states.

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 action (search) and resource (files) and lists the search criteria (name pattern, content, size, date). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by implying a search operation versus listing (dir_tree), statistics (file_stats), duplicates (duplicate_finder), or counting (code_counter). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description implies search use cases but lacks explicit context for selecting this tool over alternatives like dir_tree or file_stats.

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