Ripgrep Search Files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful trait absent from structured data — the result contains paths only, not matching lines — but says nothing about permissions, read-only safety, pagination/truncation behavior (beyond what maxCharacters states in the schema), or hidden/ignored file traversal side effects.

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, zero filler, and the tool's action plus its return contract are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.

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?

With 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does cover the return format, which is the biggest gap an absent output schema creates. But for a tool that overlaps heavily with search, search-count, and list-files, it offers no routing guidance, and no behavioral caveats around ignore rules, symlinks, or hidden files.

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% across all 15 parameters, so the schema already documents glob, path, sortBy, invertMatch, noIgnore, and the rest. The description only echoes the invertMatch idea ('or do not match') and adds no syntax, default, or interaction details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List files that match... a pattern using ripgrep') and pins the output contract ('file paths only, no line content'), which functionally separates it from search and search-count. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 output distinction ('paths only, no line content') implies when to prefer this over a content-returning search, and 'or do not match' hints at the invert case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among search, search-count, and list-files.

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