Find files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses recursive traversal, substring matching, and important exclusions like symlinks and dependency/build directories. It does not describe output shape or result limits, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for that detail. The main behavioral traits are transparently stated.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that packs in the core resource, matching criterion, recursion behavior, and traversal exclusions. There is no filler or repetition. Every phrase earns its place.

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 adequate for a simple search tool and the output schema covers return structure. However, with no annotations and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the definition lacks enough detail for an agent to fully understand parameter semantics or to be confident about when to choose this over content-search and directory-listing siblings. It is complete enough to be usable but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does clarify that matching is by name substring, which maps to nameContains, and it mentions traversal behavior. However, it does not add meaning for the required 'project' parameter, the 'path' default/scope, or 'maxResults' bounds. With four parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.

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 identifies a specific action ('find files/directories') with a clear filtering criterion ('by name substring'). It also distinguishes itself from content-search siblings by emphasizing name-based matching, and from list_directory by stating recursion. This is a specific verb+resource description that an agent can separate from the sibling 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?

The description gives clear context: use this tool when you need recursive filename/substring lookup rather than content search or directory listing. It also states traversal exclusions, including sensitive paths and dependency/build directories. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as search_text or list_directory, so the when-not-to-use guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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