search_in_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the main read behavior, but 'Returns all matching lines' is misleading given the maxResults parameter defaults to 100 and can truncate results. 'Context' is also undefined, and there is no mention of case-sensitivity defaults, result ordering, or error behavior.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the output behavior is stated immediately. Every word earns its place, though the vagueness of 'context' is a content rather than structure weakness.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It states the high-level output but does not describe the shape of returned results, what 'context' means, how maxResults affects results, or whether the search is literal or pattern-based. The 100% schema coverage compensates for parameter meaning, making it usable but not fully complete.

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?

Since the schema provides descriptions for all 5 parameters, the baseline is 3, and the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, such as clarifying whether the keyword is a literal string or regex pattern.

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 names a specific action ('Search for a keyword') and a specific resource ('within a single file'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_in_directory. It also states the return payload (matching lines with context), giving the agent an unambiguous understanding of what the tool does.

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 'within a single file' provides clear context that this tool is not for directory-wide searches, implying search_in_directory as the alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name the sibling alternative, so it stops short of fully explicit usage guidance.

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