file_search

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns credit by adding the 200-result cap, the LIMIT_EXCEEDED refusal, and the fact that truncation is signaled in the response. It stops short of describing match semantics (recursion depth, symlink handling) that affect what gets returned.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then limits, then the alternative. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description adequately signals the return-shape caveat via the truncation note. For a search tool with three parameters the definition is sufficient to call it correctly, with the remaining gap being glob-pattern semantics and result path formatting.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does add meaning for max_results (upper bound of 200, larger requests refused with LIMIT_EXCEEDED) and for path (search is confined under one directory), but glob syntax — whether ** recurses, whether matching is case-sensitive, whether results are absolute or relative — is left undocumented.

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 and resource ("Find workspace paths matching a glob") and immediately bounds the scope ("under one directory"). It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by noting that literal file names are faster with directory_list.

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?

Names one explicit alternative (directory_list) with the condition that selects it (directory known, literal name). It does not address the other plausible confusion with content_search (searching by file contents), so the routing guidance is real but incomplete.

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