find_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it finds files, without revealing whether the operation is read-only, whether it searches recursively, whether it returns relative or absolute paths, or any side effects. The description gives no insight into how the search behaves beyond the basic action.

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, compact sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, though the sentence itself is well-formed and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description is still incomplete for correct invocation. An agent would not know how to format the glob pattern, whether the search is recursive, or what the output looks like (though the output schema might cover that). Without annotations or richer context, an agent could easily misuse the glob syntax or misinterpret scope. The description is adequate only for a very simple and obvious use case.

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?

The input schema has no description for the 'glob' parameter (0% coverage), and the tool description only repeats that the search is 'by glob pattern'. This adds minimal clarification (that the string is a glob), but does not explain acceptable glob syntax, case sensitivity, or examples. For a low-coverage schema, the description does not compensate enough.

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 ('find files') and the method ('by glob pattern'), making the tool's purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_code or search_semantic, so an agent might wonder if these also find files. The verb 'find' implies a filesystem path search, but the distinction is not spelled out.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen over search_code or search_semantic. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.

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