Full-text search inside MEGA files

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses that search uses regex capability and includes PDF handling, but does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool is destructive (not needed). Returns are described as 'line snippets', which is helpful. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: first defines core purpose, second adds optimization detail. Every word is useful. No fluff.

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?

For a search tool with 6 params and no output schema, the description covers main behavior, regex, PDF handling, and performance. Could mention maxFiles and maxMatchesPerFile bounds or result format, but overall adequate.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining 'line snippets' (not in schema), noting default includePdf=true, and the performance implication of including PDFs. This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states verb ('Search'), resource ('text files and PDFs under a MEGA folder link'), action ('for a query string or regex'), and output ('Returns matching files with line snippets'). Distinguishes from siblings like mega_search (likely broader) and mega_read_file (reads a file, does not search).

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?

Description implies use when full-text search inside files is needed, and notes performance tip ('set includePdf:false to skip them (faster)'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus siblings like mega_search (which may search by filename) or mega_browse (directory listing). No alternatives mentioned.

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