Find Recent Printable Files

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: 'does not upload anything', which addresses a privacy/security concern not captured in the annotations. This goes beyond the structured metadata without contradicting it.

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 three sentences long and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The alias list is slightly redundant with the main verb phrase but earns its place as an intent-matching aid, and the privacy note is concise.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup tool, the description plus annotations cover safety and scope well: formats, read-only behavior, no uploads, and closed-world semantics are all present. However, the meaning of 'recent' is unexplained, result ordering is unspecified, and there is no output schema to help the agent understand the response shape.

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 input schema provides names, types, and numeric constraints but no parameter descriptions, so schema coverage is effectively low. The description mentions a 'project directory' and file formats but never explains the semantics of maxDepth, maxResults, or rootDirectory, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from the parameter names alone.

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 a specific verb ('Find'), a concrete resource ('recent local 3D print files'), and a scoped location ('in a project directory'). It further sharpens the purpose by enumerating supported formats (STL/STEP/3MF/OBJ/ZIP) and alias intents, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 alias intents list ('find generated model', 'locate printable file', 'scan project for...') gives an agent concrete query phrasings that should trigger this tool, which is useful usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so the guidance is implicit rather than complete.

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