ck_fs_grep

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context beyond annotations: regex behavior, default query type, path scoping (relative directory or glob, omit for whole project), return format (matching lines with file path and line numbers), and limit capping (default 50). This enriches the agent's understanding of tool behavior.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses every sentence to add value. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter behavior, and sibling differentiation in a compact form without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 1 required), high schema coverage, and existence of output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter details (including defaults), safety (read-only), and return format, leaving no significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 high (86%), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining query as regex by default, fixed_strings for literal match, path as relative directory or glob (omit for entire project), and limit capping results (default 50). This provides practical context beyond the schema definitions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search file contents inside the bound project root using grep-style pattern matching.' It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting when to use ck_fs_find and ck_fs_read instead, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use ck_fs_grep to find code patterns or strings inside files. Use ck_fs_find to locate files by name fragment. Use ck_fs_read to read a specific file by path.' It also specifies the read-only nature, helping the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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