Search files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds crucial behavioral nuance beyond them: the pagination contract that a page may be short or empty while more results remain. This prevents a real failure mode (premature termination) and gives actionable guidance beyond the 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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first states the core function, the second a prerequisite, and the third the critical pagination behavior. It is front-loaded with the key warning and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 is complete enough for a read-only search tool: it covers prerequisites, pagination loop, and termination condition. The main gap is that it doesn't specify match semantics (substring vs. exact, case sensitivity, wildcards), which could matter to an agent, and it doesn't describe the result payload since there is no output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explicitly noting bucketName is a requirement (unless a default is configured) and by clarifying that cursor existence, not page content, signals more results. These details amplify the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') with a specific resource ('files and folders by name keyword') and adds the distinguishing qualifier 'within a drive (the indexed view)'. This clearly separates it from generic list/browse tools and makes its 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 it (when searching by name keyword) and provides a strong usage pattern around pagination, but it never explicitly contrasts it with sibling tools like list_files or browse_folder. There are no 'when not to use' exclusions or alternative routing, leaving some ambiguity.

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