Search files by name

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

The description discloses the global index search with client-side filtering, the default path, the 100-result cap, and the silent-drop behavior for matches outside the path. It also confirms read-only status. These details go well beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, providing essential operational context.

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 well-structured, starting with purpose, then usage, then behavioral nuances and a warning, then differentiation from siblings. Every sentence adds value—no fluff—and it remains readable despite length.

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 an output schema present, the return format is covered. The description covers purpose, usage, behavioral pitfalls, parameter nuances, and differentiators. The caution about empty results from path filtering is critical for correct invocation. Nothing essential is missing.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it explains the default path's role in filtering, the meaning of 'keyword' (match against file names), and the consequence of the default. This goes beyond the schema, though it could explicitly tie parameters to behavior even more.

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 searches for files/directories by name keyword, and explicitly differentiates from zspace_ls and zspace_tree ('matches by name across the index rather than walking a directory'). This gives a precise verb-resource-action and distinguishes it from siblings.

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?

It states when to use ('Use to find a file without knowing its exact location') and provides a critical warning about the default path filtering behavior, advising the user to widen the path before concluding a file doesn't exist. It also names alternatives (zspace_ls, zspace_tree) and explains why they differ.

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