fs_search_paths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it searches only names, not content, and explicitly never returns secret-bearing snippets. This adds value beyond annotations. However, it does not describe other behaviors like recursion, performance characteristics, or case sensitivity, but given the annotations, this baseline is adequate.

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 a single, dense sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and includes a critical safety caveat. It wastes no words and has a clear structure. Perfect length for the information it conveys.

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 six parameters, an output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description is minimal and does not explain return format (though output schema exists), paging/limits, depth control, or platform/distro specifics. The description is adequate for basic selection but insufficient for correct invocation without additional inference. Sibling tools like fs_list or shell_run span a complex ecosystem, and this description does not provide enough guidance on how to use parameters effectively.

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 parameter meaning. The description mentions 'root', 'search file and directory names', and 'query', but does not explicitly tie these to specific parameters like 'path', 'query', 'platform', 'distro', 'max_depth', or 'limit'. With six parameters and zero schema descriptions, the tool clearly fails to help the agent understand parameter semantics. The description only implies a search term and root path, leaving the rest unexplained.

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 uses a clear verb+resource structure ('Search file and directory names under a root'), specifies the scope ('names under a root'), and includes a crucial exclusion ('never searches or returns secret-bearing content snippets'). It distinguishes itself from sibling read tools like fs_read and fs_list by focusing on path-name search. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it doesn't fully differentiate from similar search-related tools.

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 use cases for searching file/directory names without returning content, which is a clear context but not explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fs_list or fs_find. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool names are provided. The 'never searches content' clarification hints at a distinguishing use case but does not provide full usage guidance.

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