yaaif_files_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what the search scope is (e.g., all tenant files vs. session files), whether it requires authentication beyond a session, or how results are returned. The only addition is the prerequisite call, which points to session setup but doesn't explain side effects or failure modes. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with unknown behavior.

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 concise, with two sentences, and the primary action is front-loaded. It wastes no words and states the prerequisite immediately after. However, the structure could be improved by separating the prerequisite into a clearer usage note, but it is efficient and to the point.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the parameters, the search criteria (e.g., how to pass search terms via 'arguments'), the result format, and error conditions. The prerequisite reference to yaaif_dev_session_ensure is helpful but does not cover other essential context like whether session_id is required or how to specify the agent. The description is sparse for the complexity involved.

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 has 3 parameters but 0% description coverage, meaning the schema properties (agent_id, arguments, session_id) are not documented in the description. The description provides no hint about what each parameter means or how to populate them. The 'arguments' parameter is an open object with additionalProperties, requiring further explanation, which is entirely absent. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, making it hard to construct a correct call.

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 states the tool's purpose: to search uploaded files by name or preview via files_search. It clearly identifies the resource (uploaded files) and the action (search), and it is distinct from sibling tools like yaaif_files_list and yaaif_file_load_context. It does not, however, detail the exact scope (e.g., which files are searched) or differentiate from all related siblings, but the core purpose is clear.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: call yaaif_dev_session_ensure first. This is useful for ensuring a session exists. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like yaaif_files_list (which lists files) or yaaif_session_files_list (which lists session files). It also doesn't provide any exclusions or alternative routing, leaving some ambiguity about the best tool for different search scenarios.

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