Search files inside the Nextcloud workspace

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral constraints: it searches names only, operates below one workspace folder, and never crosses the configured root. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies scope, though it omits output/pagination details, which are partially covered by the output schema.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word contributes to the core semantics, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 relatively simple search tool with annotations and an output schema, the one-sentence description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks parameter-level context and does not address when to choose this tool over list_files or other siblings, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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 0%; the description does not mention query, path, max_depth, or max_results. The parameter names and defaults in the schema are self-explanatory, but the description itself adds no semantic value or guidance for how these parameters interact with the search behavior.

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 names below a workspace folder and respects the configured root, giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from list_files via the searching-vs-listing focus, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 when searching file/directory names within a bounded workspace area, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_files or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The root constraint supplies some context but no direct alternative comparison.

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