fs_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses fuzzy matching, case-insensitivity, synonym expansion, ranking factors (fuzzy match, recency, directory prior), directory prior examples, and the structure of returned hits. This is substantially more transparent than typical tool descriptions.

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 well-structured with an intro, ranking explanation, Args section, and Returns section. Every sentence adds information; the ranking example ('Documents outrank Library/Caches') is illustrative without being verbose.

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 search tool with four parameters, the description covers input semantics, default behavior, ranking behavior, and the exact return shape. Even with an output schema present, the description gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 fully compensate, and it does. Each parameter (query, paths, ext, limit) gets meaningful semantics: query's case-insensitivity and synonyms, paths' fallback to the home directory when empty, ext as an example filter, and limit's default value.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Search the user's disk by filename', and clarifies it is a fuzzy search. It also distinguishes itself from directory/file manipulation siblings by focusing on ranked filename search.

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 clearly conveys the intended use case: find files by filename, optionally scoped by paths and extension. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough that an agent would not confuse this with fs_list_dir or fs_read.

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