Search project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful context about the timeout-bounded nature of the search and that the text is already redacted, which are not covered by annotations. This extra detail about execution limits and data state earns a score above baseline.

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 a single, compact sentence that conveys the core function (search), the input (project text), the mechanism (regex), and a key constraint (timeout). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 does not specify the output format or the exact nature of the results (e.g., matches with line numbers, file paths, or context snippets). Since there is no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing about the return structure. It is adequate for basic usage but incomplete for full operational understanding.

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?

All 11 parameters have thorough schema descriptions covering types, defaults, and constraints (e.g., pattern length, range for max_results, glob patterns). Since schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no additional parameter context, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs a search over project text using a .NET regular expression, and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_file or list_projects. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other search-like tools or mention the scope of the search (e.g., all files vs. tracked files), so a small deduction applies.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_file, pack_context, or analyze. The use case is implied by the name and description, but the instructions for selecting this tool over a sibling are missing.

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