fs_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions 'starting from a root directory' but does not clarify if that root is configurable (schema has no parameters) or how recursion depth, hidden files, or error cases are handled. This omission reduces transparency.

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?

A single concise sentence clearly conveys the tool's action and constraints. No redundant or irrelevant information is present.

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 simple search tool, the description covers essential aspects (search by name, case-insensitive, partial match) but omits details like maximum results, sorting, or behavior with hidden files. The missing 'root directory' specification is a notable gap.

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?

The input schema has zero properties (100% coverage), so no parameters need description. However, the description mentions 'starting from a root directory' which implies a parameter not defined in the schema, causing potential confusion. The description doesn't add semantic value to nonexistent 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 explicitly states it searches files/folders by name with case-insensitive partial match from a root directory. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fs_list (lists directory contents) and finder_search (broader scope).

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?

No explicit when/when-not or alternatives are mentioned. The description implies usage for name-based search but does not contrast with similar tools like finder_search. The context of sibling tools provides some implicit differentiation, but direct guidance is absent.

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