search_in_roots

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful scoping traits ('bounded', 'non-symlink', 'tenant-granted roots'), but omits whether the operation is read-only, whether it is regex or substring matching, what happens at the default max_hits, or any permission/rate-limit context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently structured; the problem is under-specification, not verbosity.

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, but with no annotations and 0% schema coverage the description leaves the agent without the matching semantics, default behavior, or result-limit behavior needed to call the tool correctly.

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% and the description says nothing about the three parameters. The required 'query' is unexplained (content vs filename), the 'glob' default of *.py is never mentioned, and 'max_hits' is not addressed, so the description adds almost no meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 names a specific verb (search) and resource scope (files in tenant-granted workspace roots), which is more than a tautology. However, it never says whether the search matches file contents, filenames, or globs, so the agent cannot tell what the query is actually run against, nor how this differs from list_root_files or review_file.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative, even though siblings like list_root_files and read_root_file plausibly overlap. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name and the word 'search'.

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