fm_search_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it searches file names; it does not disclose recursion behavior, case sensitivity, hidden-file handling, or whether the operation is strictly read-only. 'Search' implies non-mutating behavior but does not state 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 tightly structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a two-line argument explanation. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 minimally viable for invoking the tool: an agent knows to supply a filename fragment and an optional root path. However, key operational details such as whether the search is recursive, whether hidden files are included, and how this differs from fm_search_text are missing, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by defining both parameters: 'query: Filename fragment' and 'path: Root to search'. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema titles, though it could specify matching semantics or path format.

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 'Search file names' names a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'file names' helps distinguish it from content-search siblings like fm_search_text. It is clear, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that fm_search_text is for content search or fm_list for directory listing, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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