Content Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the vague notion of 'advanced file operations on remote hosts' and does not disclose authentication needs, parameter scoping, or which operations the tool actually performs.

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 definition is short and front-loads 'Content search,' but the second sentence is generic and arguably misleading given the tool's focused name. It is concise, but at the cost of useful specificity.

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?

This is a complex 24-parameter tool with zero required parameters, many parameters belonging to unrelated operations, and no description of SSH/auth expectations. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still does not provide enough context to call the tool confidently.

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 itself documents every parameter. The description adds no parameter semantics, and it does not clarify why a content-search tool exposes parameters for backup, diff, watch, and recursive file operations.

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 content search in parentheses and mentions remote hosts, but it immediately broadens to 'Advanced file operations,' which is vague and does not distinguish this tool from adjacent file-operation siblings such as tm_file_recursive_ops, tm_file_watch, tm_file_diff_compare, and tm_file_backup.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The name implies content search, but the description never says how that differs from the other file-system siblings.

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