fm_search_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search file contents' and gives param labels, with no mention of whether searches are recursive, case-sensitive, regex-based, or limited to certain file types. There is no contradiction with annotations because none exist.

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 very compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each parameter receives a short clarifying phrase and there is no filler, though it is terse to the point of under-specifying important behavior.

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 file-search tool with no annotations, important operation context is missing: whether paths are absolute or relative, whether traversal is recursive, how matches are returned, and what happens with directories or binary files. An output schema exists, but the description alone does not give an agent enough to call the tool confidently beyond the two parameter names.

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 the bare schema. It adds modest meaning by labeling query as 'Text' and path as 'Root to search,' but it does not explain query syntax, matching behavior, or path interpretation beyond that.

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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Search file contents.' This differentiates from sibling fm_search_files by indicating contents rather than filenames, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with that alternative.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fm_search_files or fm_list. It does not mention recursion, scope, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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