Spotlight-Suche

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses output (file paths), the single-search-type constraint, and the Full Disk Access limitation for protected locations. However, it does not specify whether limit applies across all three modes, the default formatting, or that mdfind output could be huge without a limit.

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 compact (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. It packs purposeful detail into the caveat sentence. Minor inefficiency: the tool name is in German but the search-mode keywords are English, which is understandable but slightly awkward.

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?

For a search tool with 5 parameters at 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the three search modes, the output format, and the protected-locations caveat. It lacks an explicit mention of behavior when no search-type param is given (error vs empty), and doesn't contrast with spotlight_metadata, but these are minor gaps given good schema coverage.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of text/name/query and the requirement to choose exactly one, which goes beyond the individual parameter docs. It doesn't add much per-parameter detail but the schema coverage makes that acceptable.

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+resource ('Durchsucht den macOS-Spotlight-Index (mdfind) nach Dateien') and clearly distinguishes three search modes (text, name, query). It also differentiates from the sibling tool spotlight_metadata by focusing on files/full-text, adding scoping clarity.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool (searching files via mdfind) and explicitly states that exactly one search type must be provided. It mentions the protected-locations caveat. However, it does not explicitly contrast against spotlight_metadata (the sibling) or state when not to use it.

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