Search files

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by clarifying that the search operates on 'the indexed view' (implying results may not be a real-time filesystem scan) and that pagination is used. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful information about scope and output style.

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 short sentences with no redundancy or filler. The first sentence gives the core purpose, the second states a key dependency, and the third notes pagination. Every sentence carries information, and it is well front-loaded.

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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core function, the indexed nature, the requirement on bucketName, and pagination. It does not specify the exact structure of matches, but the tool is not complex enough to demand more; the gaps are minor given the schema richness.

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 all parameters are already documented with descriptions. The text reinforces that bucketName is required and indicates the search is name-based, but it does not add meaningfully to the schema descriptions (e.g., no examples, no default behavior beyond what's stated). Meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 immediately states the tool's verb ('Search'), target resource ('files and folders'), and scope ('within a drive (the indexed view)'), with a distinctive qualifier that separates it from sibling tools like list_files or browse_folder. It also explicitly notes the pagination behavior, making the core function unmistakable.

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 when to use the tool (searching by name keyword) and notes a prerequisite (requires bucketName), but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as list_files or browse_folder. There is no 'use this instead of X' guidance, so it stays at implied usage rather than explicit recommendations.

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