fs_search_in_file_by_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention safety, default behaviors (e.g., ignore_case defaults to true), support for regex, or how context lines are returned. The phrase 'line context' is minimally informative and largely redundant with the schema's lines_before/lines_after parameters.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key facts: single-file scope, content search, and line context. It is appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys, though it sacrifices substance 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 7 parameters and multiple sibling search tools, the description is too sparse. It does not mention the existence of optional parameters like regex, case sensitivity, or encoding, nor does it explain how line context is configured. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but the description still leaves the agent guessing about feature availability and prerequisites for a complex search operation.

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 by explaining parameter meanings and relationships. It does not mention any of the 7 parameters, nor does it clarify how to use them (e.g., that lines_before/lines_after control context, or is_regex enables regex). The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, which is nothing for most parameters.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('single file content'), and adds a distinguishing scope ('single file') that differentiates it from sibling tools like fs_search_files_by_content and fs_search_in_files_by_content which search across multiple files. The mention of 'line context' further clarifies the output nature.

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 provides clear context by explicitly specifying 'single file', which tells the agent when to use this tool. However, it does not name alternatives or state explicit 'when not to use' conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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