fs_search_files

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 mentions the action ('Search for files') but doesn't cover key traits like whether it's read-only, if it has rate limits, what permissions are needed, or how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential file system access.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose and including helpful examples. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's complexity (file system search with two parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or result format, which are crucial for an AI agent to use it correctly in context with sibling tools.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('pattern' and 'path') with descriptions and defaults. The description adds minimal value by providing examples (e.g., '*.js, *.py') but doesn't explain semantics beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Search for files by pattern' with examples, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fs_list_files' (which might list files without pattern matching), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'fs_list_files' for listing all files without pattern matching or other sibling tools for different contexts. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.

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