search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the default case-insensitivity, the regex interpretation mode, and the non-obvious translation-table reverse-lookup behavior (searching Chinese via $key). It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only search these are minor.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by parameter behavior and return format. It is compact and each line adds information, though the multi-line layout is slightly dense.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description still summarizes the return (files, line numbers, line content), and covers the key query semantics including the translation feature. The only gap, max_results, is minor for a search tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains query (substring), regex, glob (with example patterns), and the default case-insensitivity that maps to case_sensitive. Only max_results is left undocumented, so nearly all parameters gain meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('在文本文件内容中搜索'), which is clearly distinct from reading (read_text/read_xml) or listing (list_dir). It is clear on its own but never explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tools.

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?

It explains how glob narrows scope with concrete examples and clarifies the regex toggle, implying when those options apply. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus read_text or list_dir, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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