Codebase Search (ripgrep)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds feature context (regex, context lines, file type filtering) and a performance claim, but does not disclose any other behavioral aspects such as recursion behavior, result limits, or return format. Given the annotations cover the critical safety traits, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The sentence '32× faster than grep' is a performance claim that does not aid tool invocation and could be omitted, but it is not verbose enough to detract significantly. Overall, it is concise and to the point.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent search tool with no output schema, the description covers the main capabilities. However, it lacks details that could affect an agent's call, such as whether the search is recursive, whether results are limited, or how output is structured. Given the existence of sibling tools and the need to select the right one, some usage context would improve completeness, but it is not critically incomplete.

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 only 25%, with just 'path' having a description. The description compensates by implying the semantics of the other parameters: 'regex' maps to pattern, 'context lines' to context, and 'file type filtering' to fileType. This adds meaning to otherwise undocumented parameters, earning a 4 rather than a lower score.

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 identifies the tool as a codebase search tool using ripgrep, stating the verb 'search' and resource 'codebase'. It lists key features (regex, context, file type filtering). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ast_search, which also searches code but at the AST level, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions or contexts where another tool would be more appropriate. The usage is only implied by the name and title, but there is no explicit guidance for an agent deciding between this and ast_search or other search-related tools.

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