Search Site Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: it searches recursively to a maximum depth of 10 levels, returns at most 100 results, and skips common directories (node_modules, vendor) and dotfiles. This gives the agent a clear picture of outcome limitations and filtering behavior.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then immediately lists key constraints (recursive depth, result limit, exclusions). Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is searched, how deep, result cap, and exclusions. It does not explicitly state what the return value looks like (e.g., list of file paths), but given the tool's simplicity and the clarity of the operation, this is a minor gap. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (pattern, path, site). The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. It references 'name pattern' in the description, aligning with the pattern parameter, but no further semantics are added. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: searching for files by name pattern within the site directory. It specifies the resource ('files'), the action ('search'), and the scope ('Local site directory'), while also differentiating from sibling tools by noting recursive search, depth limit, and exclusions.

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 when to use this tool (when you need to find files by name pattern) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, it does not say 'Use list_site_directory to browse files' or 'Use search_site_files when you need to locate a file by pattern.' The usage context is clear from the description but not explicitly differentiated.

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