spotlight_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey the tool's behavioral profile. It accurately notes the use of the Spotlight index via mdfind, which implies a read-only search operation and reliance on indexed data. However, it does not disclose details like result format (file paths), potential staleness of the index, or that it only returns paths, leaving some behavioral ambiguity. The addition of 'mdfind' provides moderate value beyond a generic search statement.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and mechanism. No filler or redundant language; every word adds value.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required param, three total), no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers the core functionality. It explains what it searches, how (Spotlight/mdfind), and via the schema covers parameter semantics. It could mention that results are file paths, but this is largely implied. Overall, it is complete for a straightforward 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already defines. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Searches') and a clear resource ('macOS file system for files using Spotlight index (mdfind)'). It clearly distinguishes from all sibling tools, none of which perform file search. The mention of 'mdfind' further reinforces the exact mechanism.

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 implies usage for searching files on macOS, and since no sibling tool offers similar search functionality, the intended use is clear. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative approaches, but the context makes the purpose unambiguous.

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