find_in_file

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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it searches for 'literal text' (not regex), returns 'line-numbered excerpts,' and is scoped to return only a portion of the file. It does not detail return format extremes (e.g., no matches) but adds value beyond the 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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core function. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema information. This is a model of 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?

The tool has 6 parameters, an output schema, and several sibling tools. The description covers the core search-and-excerpt behavior but omits guidance on server_id selection, case sensitivity nuances, or behavior with zero matches. Given the output schema exists, return values are documented elsewhere, but the description could still offer more operational context for a smooth invocation.

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 indirectly conveys that 'query' is a literal string (not regex) and that 'context_lines' and 'max_matches' influence the 'small line-numbered excerpts.' However, it does not explain the 'server_id' parameter or the default behavior of 'case_sensitive' beyond what schema defaults imply. The description adds some meaning but not comprehensive parameter guidance.

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's function with a specific verb ('Find literal text') and resource ('in a file'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing it returns 'small line-numbered excerpts instead of the whole file.' This directly contrasts with read_file and read_file_chunk, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'instead of the whole file' implies a use case (when you need excerpts, not the full content) but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it. No direct comparison with grep-like functionality or other siblings like replace_in_file is provided. The guidance is primarily implied rather than explicit, earning a mid-range score.

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