glob

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive annotations: it discloses the result cap (100 paths), the sort order (modification time), that directories are excluded, that execution happens remotely over ssh, and that .git/node_modules are skipped. These are the facts an agent needs to reason about result truncation and coverage.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then return semantics, then the REMOTE qualifier. No filler; every clause carries a distinct fact.

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 compensates by specifying return type, ordering, limit, and remote execution target. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the remote/ssh and target framing but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the pattern and target schema descriptions already supply.

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 files whose paths match a glob pattern." It also pins scope by declaring what is returned (file paths, never directories), separating it from content-oriented siblings like grep and from read/write which operate on named files.

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?

Usage is implied (path-based file discovery on a remote target) but no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and it never names grep as the alternative for content search. An agent must infer the routing from the sibling names.

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