websex_grep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the execution context ('runs from the selected engagement namespace; use relative paths') but says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, how the arguments array is interpreted by grep, or the safety implications of passing raw arguments to a shell 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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the routing guidance following. Every sentence carries information and none is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 4-parameter execution tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves the entire parameter surface and the tool's safety profile unexplained, which is a substantial gap.

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% across 4 parameters (stdin, arguments, engagement_id, working_directory), and the description explains none of them. The only partial hint, 'use relative paths', loosely touches working_directory but leaves engagement_id, arguments, and stdin entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search text files ... with GNU grep') plus a clear scope ('inside the selected engagement'). It also names the sibling tools it is not (websex_jq, websex_python), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives: prefer websex_jq for structured JSON and websex_python for custom parsing. This is clear when-to-use-which guidance, though it stops short of stating hard exclusions (e.g. binary files, non-text input).

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