fuzzy_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It does not disclose recursion behavior, case sensitivity, hidden file handling, or performance characteristics, leaving significant gaps about how the tool operates beyond the basic algorithm.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every word is necessary and efficient.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits details about return format (e.g., file paths, metadata), recursion options, hidden files, and default search scope, leaving the agent with incomplete context for reliable usage.

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?

All five parameters have descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches for files using fuzzy matching, handling typos and partial matches. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_content' and 'search_files' by specifying the fuzzy algorithm, making its unique purpose clear.

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 implies usage for approximate name matching but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. No guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like 'search_files' or 'semantic_search'.

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