hpc_find_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — 'Returns paths only' — which tells the agent no metadata comes back. It omits permission/prerequisite context and any note on traversal cost or result limits.

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 tightly packed sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with the return contract. No wasted words and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema, the 'Return paths only' clause usefully pins down the return value, and the filter dimensions are surfaced. However, max_depth's default of 3 and the meaning of an empty result are undocumented, leaving real gaps for a 5-parameter 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 description coverage is only 40%, so the description has to compensate. It does name the filter dimensions (name/type/size), which maps conceptually to name_pattern, file_type, and size_filter, but it omits base_path and max_depth entirely and adds no syntax detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (files), plus the filter dimensions (name/type/size) and the scoping constraint (under a directory). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like hpc_list_directory, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, despite obvious siblings (hpc_list_directory for simple listings, hpc_get_file_info for metadata, hpc_search_in_file for content search). The agent must infer the selection criteria.

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