brain_grep

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the ripgrep backend and the output shape, but does not mention read-only behavior, limit truncation, no-match behavior, hidden-file handling, or regex flavor. It provides some useful context but not a fully transparent behavioral profile.

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 short sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core function and then gives the output format, so every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits the search scope (what is being searched), how the limit applies, and any guidance about alternatives, leaving an agent to infer several operational details.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'pattern' is an exact or regex pattern, but it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter, leaving its meaning and effect to inference from the name and default value.

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 that the tool performs exact or regex search and that it returns file:line:match output. It distinguishes itself from the likely semantic sibling brain_search by emphasizing exact/regex search, though it never explicitly names the resource being searched (the 'brain').

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 'exact/regex' phrasing implies when this tool should be used, and the sibling brain_search likely covers semantic search, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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