fs_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: 'no symlink follow', 'max_matches capped', and 'supports literal or regex query'. These disclose important operational constraints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No filler words or redundancy with the schema.

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 tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, but the description does not explain several parameters (glob, path, project). While safety and core search behavior are covered, the missing parameter context makes it less complete for effective invocation. Output schema existence reduces the need for return-value explanation, but the parameter gaps remain.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It explains 'literal or regex query' (literal parameter) and 'max_matches capped' (max_matches), but does not explain 'glob', 'path', or 'project' parameters, leaving key filtering options ambiguous. The description only partially fulfills the compensation burden.

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?

Description clearly states 'Search file contents under the project root' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fs_read (read a file) and fs_list (list files). The mention of 'ripgrep' and 'no symlink follow' further specifies the exact operation.

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 implies when to use the tool (for content search) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'supports literal or regex query' hints at use cases, but there is no explicit exclusion or alternative naming.

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