grep

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic operation (search and return matching lines) but does not disclose whether the pattern is a regular expression, if matching is case-sensitive, what happens if the file is missing, or whether line numbers are included. These are significant behavioral unknowns.

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, readable sentence that front-loads the core verb and resource. It is concise and to the point, though it could be slightly tighter without 'This function will'.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but insufficient. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or pattern semantics, which are essential for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The description feels like a skeleton rather than complete guidance.

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 explain parameters. It merely labels 'pattern' and 'file' without adding details (e.g., file path format, regex syntax, escape characters). The description adds little beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 action ('search for the given pattern'), the resource ('specified file'), and the outcome ('return the matching lines'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like read_file (which reads whole file) and write_file (which writes).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where grep is preferred over read_file or bash. The only usage hint is implicit in the action itself.

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