find_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the recursive search behavior and output format ('list of matching file paths'), which is useful. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or pagination, leaving gaps for a tool that performs file system operations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output details and a key behavioral trait (recursive search). It uses three concise sentences with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and behavior but is incomplete. It doesn't cover error cases, performance implications of recursive searches, or format of the returned list, which could be important for an AI agent to use this tool effectively in varied contexts.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining 'name_pattern' further or providing context for 'path'. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 clearly states the specific action ('Find files by name pattern') and resource ('files'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_directory' (which lists all files) and 'search_content' (which searches within file contents). The mention of 'Returns list of matching file paths' further clarifies the output.

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 through 'Recursively searches all subdirectories by default,' suggesting it's for deep searches, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_directory' (for listing without pattern matching) or 'search_content' (for content-based searches). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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