search_in_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits: recursive traversal and returning results from all matching files. However, it does not discuss edge cases such as binary files, permission issues, or output limitations, leaving room for more transparency.

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 consists of two short sentences with no filler: the first states the operation and scope, the second states the outcome. Every clause earns its place.

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 that all six parameters are already documented in the schema, the description is nearly complete for invoking the tool. The only gap is that the exact result structure is not specified, but the description plus the includeLineNumbers and maxResults parameters provide sufficient operational context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter and default. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline of 3.

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 and resource: 'Search for a keyword across all files in a directory recursively.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_in_file by emphasizing directory-level recursive search rather than a single-file operation.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool when the intent is to search across an entire directory tree. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is not merely implied.

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