search_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It provides useful context such as pattern being evaluated relative to root, root being relative to the workspace, and max_results being a cap. However, it omits other behavioral details like recursion behavior, handling of hidden files, or error cases.

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 highly concise, with a clear opening line followed by a simple Args list. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the format is well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and parameters, and an output schema exists to handle return values. However, it lacks guidance on choosing this tool over siblings and does not mention edge cases or limitations, leaving some gaps in completeness for a tool with this scope.

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%, but the description fully explains all three parameters: pattern (glob pattern relative to root), root (directory relative to workspace root), and max_results (cap on matches). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default information, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool finds files by glob pattern, specifying a verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like find_text or list_directory, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_text (searching file contents) or list_directory (listing a directory). The description only explains what the tool does, not when it should be preferred.

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