fs.grep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It hints at parallelism with 'local worker pool' but lacks details on permissions, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The behavioral model is incomplete.

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, which is front-loaded but too brief. It does not earn its place by providing sufficient detail; it sacrifices necessary information for brevity.

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 no output schema, no annotations, 4 undocumented parameters, and a search tool with many siblings, the description is grossly incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, output format, usage context, and behavioral guarantees, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

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%, yet the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (root, pattern, maxFiles, maxResults). The agent has no clue what these parameters mean or how to use them, adding zero value beyond the schema.

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 states 'Search file contents under a root', clearly indicating the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fs.glob (which searches file names) or file.read (which reads entire files), missing specificity about content searching.

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 mentions 'for large trees', implying optimization for large directory structures, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., file.read for small files, search.fetch for web). No when-not-to-use or exclusions are given.

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