Find text

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: case-insensitive matching, scoping to the session's working copy, and per-file-format result address behavior. This gives an agent a realistic sense of what will happen when invoked.

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 two dense, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the core search behavior, gives concrete return-address examples, and then adds the crucial working-copy vs. disk distinction. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 read-only search tool, the description is quite complete: it explains scope, matching semantics, result address formats, and relationship to disk state. The output schema covers return structure, so that doesn't need repeating. The only material gap is the lack of guidance around optional parameters like `part` and `max_results`.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the burden of explaining parameters. It implicitly clarifies `query` and `session_id` through the search behavior and working-copy language, but it never explains `part` or `max_results`. These optional parameters are left to name inference, which is insufficient for an agent selecting values confidently.

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 a specific action (case-insensitive substring search) over a defined resource (every text-bearing part the digest covers) and explains the return value as the best address per hit, with concrete examples for docx, pptx, and xlsx. It also differentiates itself from `verify` by noting the working-copy vs. on-disk 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?

It gives clear contextual guidance: results reflect the session's working copy as opened, and `verify` is the tool for the file currently on disk. This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate versus an alternative, though it could be even more explicit about when to prefer find_text over other siblings such as digest.

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