search_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the critical behavioral trait of being read-only, which is essential for an agent to know this is a safe operation. It also clarifies that only UTF-8-compatible content is searchable, adding useful constraint information beyond the 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 one dense sentence with essential information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and adds the important 'Read-only' note, with no redundant phrasing.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and safety but lacks sufficient detail on parameters like glob, case sensitivity, and result limits, which are not documented in the schema. Given the parameter count and zero schema descriptions, the description is adequate but leaves gaps for correct invocation.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains the role of 'root' ('below a root directory'), 'query' ('search filenames... text contents'), and hints at 'search_contents' via 'optionally'. However, it fails to explain 'glob', 'case_sensitive', 'max_results', and 'max_file_bytes', leaving those parameters ambiguous.

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 filenames and optionally UTF-8-compatible text contents in a directory tree. The verb 'search' plus the resource ('filenames' and 'text contents') and scope ('below a root directory') make it specific, and the 'Read-only' note differentiates it from write/delete tools.

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 searching filenames or content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_directory or read_text_file. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are provided.

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