Find Files by Pattern

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Find files matching a pattern' is essentially a restatement of the name; it does not disclose recursion behavior, path scope relative to project_path, handling of hidden files, or explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior except by implication.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or unnecessary content. It is easy to scan and appropriately brief, though that brevity contributes to the lack of contextual guidance penalized elsewhere.

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?

Parameter complexity is low and an output schema exists, which reduces the burden, but the description is not complete for an agent choosing among many similar sibling tools. It does not explain the relationship between pattern and project_path, the search scope, or how it differs from related listing/search tools.

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 100%: pattern is documented with a glob example ('**/*.gd') and project_path is described as an optional project root. The description adds no parameter details, but with complete schema descriptions the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action and object: find files, with a specific criterion, matching a pattern. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate it from the many sibling file-listing/search tools, which prevents a 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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like godot_get_project_files, godot_search_content, godot_find_unused_files, or the list_*/find_* tools. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or selection cues beyond the bare mechanism.

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