Search local BeamNG game source

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

The readOnlyHint in annotations already covers the safety profile. The description adds that the search is over 'configured' local text files and targets 'APIs and real usage examples', which gives some context about behavior. However, it does not disclose details about result format, ordering, or failure modes, so it only partially adds value beyond annotations.

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 sentence, 15 words, immediately stating the verb and resource. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant phrasing, earning high marks for conciseness.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and a modest but real complexity (search with filters like patterns), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a 'configured' source means, what the returned output looks like, or how limiting works. The description leaves critical contextual gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description provides no information about the meaning of the three parameters (query, limit, patterns). The mention of 'APIs and real usage examples' gives a hint about query intent, but it does not explain how parameters interact or what patterns represent. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('local BeamNG text files'), and a purpose ('for APIs and real usage examples'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like beamng_docs_search, which would search documentation rather than source code.

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 implies usage contexts (when you need real usage examples from source) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over beamng_docs_search or when not to use it. The 'read-only' hint provides a safety context, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternatives named.

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