fs_search_files_by_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search dir' and 'return paths,' but does not disclose read-only behavior, encoding handling, regex/case sensitivity defaults, or how errors or binary files are handled.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, though arguably too sparse to be considered 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?

With 7 parameters and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits key context like search scope, filtering options, and parameter behaviors. The presence of an output schema is noted but does not reduce the need for guidance on how to invoke the tool correctly.

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% for most parameters, and the description only indirectly refers to dir_path ('dir') and search_term ('target text'). It provides no meaning for recursive, is_regex, ignore_case, file_extension, or charset, so it fails to compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 the tool's core purpose clearly: 'Search dir, return paths of files containing target text.' This specifies a verb, resource, and result. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fs_search_in_files_by_content and fs_search_in_file_by_content, which appear to have overlapping functionality.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of conditions like recursion or file filtering. Given the similar sibling search tools, this lack of usage context is a notable gap.

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