files_search

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the hybrid search nature, defaults, and parameter effects. However, it omits response format, pagination, and potential performance implications, lacking full transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. No extraneous information, perfectly concise.

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 key parameter behaviors but lacks return value description and prerequisites. With no output schema, completeness is moderate. It adequately addresses the main use case but leaves gaps for new users.

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 explain parameters. It covers include_history and corpora, but ignores limit, timeout, database, filetype, and corpus. This leaves 6 of 8 parameters undocumented, insufficient for a parameter-heavy tool.

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 explicitly states 'Hybrid FTS5 + vector search over file-ingestion leaves,' clearly identifying the tool's purpose as a search function. It distinguishes from siblings like files_get (retrieve) and files_index (index) by focusing on search.

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 clear usage guidance for key parameters: default current versions, include_history for time-travel, and corpora for multi-corpus fan-out. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but siblings are distinct operations, so no exclusion is needed.

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