Search file names

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing a real prerequisite ('the server must allow SEARCH') and a behavioral quirk ('results are capped'), which an agent needs to know before trusting an empty result set.

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?

Three tight sentences with the identifying mechanism and the key negative distinction front-loaded, no filler. The trailing 'Results are capped' is slightly vague and partially redundant with the schema's maximum of 100, which keeps it just under a 5.

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 three-parameter, no-output-schema read tool the coverage is adequate: safety comes from annotations and parameters from the schema. However, it omits what a result actually contains (paths, names, properties?) and how the cap interacts with discovery, leaving an agent to infer the return shape.

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 coverage is 100%, so path, limit and query are all already documented at the field level, including the wildcard stripping and the 'does not search file contents' note. The description only echoes the folder-scope and cap concepts, adding no syntax or format detail the schema lacks; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search file and folder names) plus the exact mechanism (WebDAV SEARCH RFC 5323 on /remote.php/dav/) and scope (one folder). It explicitly contrasts with the nearest confusion risk — 'not full-text content search' — so an agent can separate it from read_file or list_directory without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context for use: filename substring match within one folder scope, defaulting to the user's files. It rules out content search, but never names a sibling it competes with (e.g. list_directory for browsing vs this for targeted lookup), so the routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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