search_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the ripgrep dependency and supported features, but it does not explain behavior such as what happens if ripgrep is missing, search recursion scope, or how results are returned.

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 brief, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence contributes meaningful information: what it does, the system prerequisite, and the supported options. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The description is adequate given the rich schema and existing output schema, but it omits practical context like the default search path, how the path relates to a root directory, and when to prefer this over glob. It covers the basics but leaves room for more operational context.

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 schema descriptions already cover all parameters (100% coverage), and the description mostly summarizes those same features (regex patterns, glob filtering, case sensitivity, context lines, result limiting). It adds no deeper meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the tool searches file contents using ripgrep, identifying the verb, resource, and implementation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like glob, but 'file contents' helps distinguish it from file-name-based search tools.

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 implies when to use the tool (searching file contents) and lists supported capabilities, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like glob or list_dir. Usage context is inferable rather than directly guided.

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