Search files

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these annotations: it reveals that content is searched 'where indexed' and explains the pagination protocol with 'has_more' and 'cursor'. These details inform the agent about result continuation and content matching, which the annotations do not cover. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three concise sentences with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the scoping and pagination details are provided efficiently. Every sentence contributes meaning: purpose, optional scoping, and continuation handling.

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 6 parameters and only 1 required, the description covers key nuances: content search, folder scope, and pagination. It does not describe the exact response structure, but the mention of 'has_more' and 'cursor' implies the output format. Given the read-only annotations and schema coverage, the description is largely complete for an agent to call the tool correctly, though a note on result contents could make it fully complete.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying the query behavior ('where indexed'), the path scope ('Optionally scope to a folder'), and the cursor usage ('call again with the returned cursor'). These enrich the parameter definitions beyond the schema descriptions, particularly for path and cursor.

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 explicitly states 'Search the account for files and folders matching a query' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_folder by specifying a global search across the account with optional folder scoping. The phrase 'filename and, where indexed, content' clarifies the scope of matching, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 by describing the search behavior and optional folder scope, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_folder or get_metadata. There is no 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance. However, the context of searching across the account and pagination hint at when it is appropriate, so the usage is implied rather than explicit.

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