files_search

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool performs hybrid search and supports time-travel via include_history. It does not address side effects, authentication, rate limits, or whether it is read-only, but the search nature implies read access.

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 the second sentence adds actionable parameter tips. No redundant or verbose phrasing.

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?

Despite 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description omits details on query syntax, the meaning of corpus vs. corpora, the database parameter, and the vector search behavior. It feels incomplete for a search tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only explains include_history and corpora, leaving query, limit, corpus, database, and filetype undocumented. This insufficiently compensates for the schema gap.

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 name 'files_search' and description 'Hybrid FTS5 + vector search over file-ingestion leaves' clearly indicate the tool searches over files using a specific hybrid approach. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like files_get, though the search vs. retrieval distinction is evident.

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 usage tips for include_history and corpora, guiding when to use those parameters. However, it does not contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use files_get instead) or state prerequisites for using the tool.

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