fs_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The 'grep -rn' analogy effectively communicates that the search is recursive and outputs line numbers. While it does not explicitly mention read-only behavior or edge cases (no matches, binary files), the analogy provides reasonable transparency for a search tool.

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, concise sentence that quickly conveys the tool's behavior. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., stating output format) without losing conciseness.

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 lack of output schema, the description should explain the return value (e.g., list of matching files with line numbers). It does not. The sibling tools list suggests a rich environment, but the description is too minimal to fully contextualize the tool's place and output.

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 coverage is only 25% (only file_pattern has a description). The tool description does not explain the 'id' or 'pattern' parameters, nor does it clarify that 'path' defaults to '/workspace'. The grep analogy implicitly explains 'pattern' but leaves 'id' and 'file_pattern' ambiguous. The description fails to compensate for the low schema 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 'grep -rn for a pattern in a directory' clearly states the tool's purpose: searching for a string pattern recursively in a directory. It uses a well-known command analogy, making it immediately understandable and distinguishing it from sibling tools like code_search, which may offer more features.

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 like code_search or fs_read. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name and analogy alone.

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