Search Files

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds real context beyond it: the search is confined to allowed directories and results are full paths. It does not disclose ordering or result-size/truncation behavior, which is a minor gap for a read tool with annotation 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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and pattern syntax before examples and return info. Slightly repetitive with two pattern examples, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states what is returned (full paths), and scope plus pattern syntax are covered. The undocumented 'excludePatterns' parameter leaves the definition incomplete for a tool whose schema provides no parameter descriptions at all.

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 parameter meaning. It handles 'pattern' well ('*.ext' vs '**/*.ext', relative to working directory) and implies 'path', but says nothing about 'excludePatterns', leaving one of three parameters entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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+resource ('recursively search for files and directories matching a pattern') and names the matching mechanism (glob patterns), which clearly separates it from list_directory and directory_tree. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 sentence 'Great for finding files when you don't know their exact location' implies when to reach for it, but no explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g., use list_directory for a single non-recursive listing) are given. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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