files_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses hybrid search, versioning behavior, and corpora fan-out. It does not mention any destructive actions or auth needs, but it is generally clear and consistent. Minor gap: no statement about read-only nature.

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?

Two sentences: first states core purpose and default, second adds two key options. Every sentence adds value; no filler. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the core search and two parameters but misses many essential details like query syntax, limit default, filetype filtering, etc. Additional context needed.

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 description must compensate. It explains include_history and corpora, but leaves 6 other parameters (query, limit, corpus, timeout, database, filetype) unexplained. Partial compensation but significant gaps remain.

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 specifies 'Hybrid FTS5 + vector search over file-ingestion leaves', clearly indicating a search tool over files. It distinguishes by mentioning default current versions and historical option, setting it apart from sibling tools like files_get, files_stats, etc.

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 provides guidance on using include_history for time-travel queries and corpora for fan-out, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool. It implies context but lacks exclusions.

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