Search files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses wildcard support, omitting critical behaviors like default recursion (true per schema), return format (paths vs. file objects), handling of hidden files, and case sensitivity. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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 that communicates the core purpose and key feature (wildcard support) without any filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the search returns (e.g., list of paths, file objects) but does not. It also lacks context on edge cases and operational details like recursion behavior, making it incomplete for a tool that an agent must invoke correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small note about wildcards (* and ?), which slightly supplements the schema's 'Glob pattern' example, but it does not provide meaningful additional semantics for the parameters beyond what the schema already defines.

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 uses a specific verb 'searches' and clearly identifies the resource 'file store' with a pattern-matching function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_directory and read_file by focusing on pattern-based search rather than direct listing or reading.

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 implies usage for pattern-matching scenarios but does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives. It relies on the user to infer that search is appropriate when a pattern is known, but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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