fs_search_in_files_by_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Search multi-file with line context, return matched blocks,' omitting the read-only nature, error handling, performance implications, or output structure. Important behavioral details like case sensitivity, regex support, and recursive traversal are left to the schema, which is not sufficient for a safe and efficient selection.

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 an 8-word sentence, which is extremely short and front-loaded with the core action. However, the brevity borders on under-specification; it omits details that are necessary for correct usage, making it less 'appropriately sized' and more 'too terse.' It is not as minimal as 'Process,' but it still sacrifices essential information.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and only a minimal description, the contextual information is severely lacking. The description does not address when to use the tool, what the returned blocks contain, how parameters interact (e.g., recursive + file_extension), or any error conditions. The presence of an output schema helps, but the tool still needs a more complete description to function 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%, and the description does not explain any of the 10 parameters. It does not mention dir_path, search_term, recursive, lines_before/after, is_regex, ignore_case, charset, limit, or file_extension. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema, so agents have no additional semantic clues about parameter relationships or typical usage.

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 it searches multiple files and returns matched blocks with line context. The phrase 'multi-file' differentiates it from the single-file sibling fs_search_in_file_by_content, and 'line context' suggests richer output than fs_search_files_by_content. However, 'matched blocks' is not fully elaborated, and the resource scope could be more explicit.

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 term 'multi-file' implies a directory-wide search use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tool names hint at trade-offs, but the description itself does not direct the agent toward or away from any specific scenario.

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