file_search

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 adds the useful detail that it can search within file content (grep mode) in addition to filenames, but it does not mention read-only nature, recursion behavior, performance implications, or return format. This partial disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence of 11 words, immediately front-loads the action and resource, and contains no filler or redundancy. It is concise, clear, and well-structured.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., file paths, match lines, exit codes) or how it handles multiple results. It also omits any mention of the default path or optional parameters. This leaves significant context gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter (name, path, content) already has descriptive information, establishing a baseline of 3. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, relying entirely on the schema. No value beyond the schema is provided.

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 for files or content within files on the router' uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('files or content within files'), clearly covering both find-by-name and grep-content behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_list (which lists files) and file_read (which reads a specific file), even though alternatives are not explicitly named.

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 via the verb 'search' and the resource scope, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use file_search versus file_list, file_read, or run_command. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the usage context is only minimally implied.

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