workspace_search

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'search for files or content', omitting crucial details like whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is (list of paths, snippets), search recursion, pattern syntax, or performance implications. The description is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-informative. Essential details are omitted in favor of brevity. Front-loading is acceptable ('Search...' verb first), but the conciseness reduces overall value.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain return values, scope, and behavior. It fails to mention whether results include file paths, content snippets, or just counts. A search tool with type and path options needs more context than provided to be reliably useful.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., query, path, type). It does not clarify supported pattern syntax for 'query' or what 'content' search entails (e.g., full-text vs. substring).

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 'Search for files or content in the workspace' clearly identifying the verb (search) and resource (files/content). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like workspace_list or workspace_tree which also interact with files. The purpose is clear but lacks distinction.

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?

No guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workspace_list, workspace_tree, or workspace_read. There is no mention of when not to use it or the context in which it is most appropriate. This forces the agent to guess based solely on the name.

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