search_in_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Search for text patterns in files' without mentioning recursion, regex support, return format, handling of binary files, or any side effects. The behavior remains largely opaque, making it difficult for an agent to predict outcomes.

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 succinct and front-loaded with the essential purpose. It wastes no words, but the brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with 8 parameters. Still, it earns some credit for clarity and lack of redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (8 params) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what results are returned, whether the search is recursive, or how edge cases are handled. An agent would need to rely heavily on parameter descriptions to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema contains descriptions for all 8 parameters, so schema coverage is high. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides – it merely restates the 'pattern' concept. As a result, the description provides no extra param semantic 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 clearly identifies the tool as searching for text patterns in files, which is distinct from sibling tools like read_file or find_files, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from find_files (which likely searches filenames). The verb 'Search' and resource 'files' are specific, making the 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer search_in_files over find_files or other file operations, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding between tools.

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