Search Files

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral details: recursive traversal, glob pattern semantics relative to the working directory, return of full paths, and restriction to allowed directories. These go beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and structured: purpose, pattern semantics, examples, return behavior, and constraint are each one clear sentence. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

With a read-only annotation and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it covers recursion, glob matching, returned paths, and allowed-directory scope. The main missing piece is a precise definition of the `path` parameter (e.g., whether it is the starting directory and whether it is relative or absolute).

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `pattern` well with glob syntax and examples ('*.ext', '**/*.ext'), but it never explicitly describes the `path` parameter or the `excludePatterns` parameter, leaving a meaningful gap for a required argument.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Recursively search for files and directories matching a pattern.' It further clarifies the mechanism (glob-style patterns) and the output (full paths), which clearly differentiates it from sibling read/write/list tools.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use cue: 'Great for finding files when you don't know their exact location.' It also states the scope constraint 'Only searches within allowed directories,' but it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or when not to use them.

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