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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: it returns path:line:text and explains that context controls the number of surrounding lines shown, capped at 5.

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?

Two dense sentences deliver the core operation, target, output format, and context parameter semantics without wasted words. The essential information is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers enough to invoke the tool correctly: required path and pattern, output format, and context semantics. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented ignore_case parameter, whose default is visible in the schema.

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 carries the burden for parameter meaning. It explains path (file or directory), pattern (regex), and context (lines around each hit, max 5), but omits ignore_case behavior. This is strong compensation, though incomplete.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('a workspace file or ... directory'), and the output format ('path:line:text'). This clearly distinguishes ws_grep from sibling tools like ws_read and ws_ls, which read or list rather than 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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: searching files or directories such as job/<job_id>/words with a regex. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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