search_project

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

Annotation readOnlyHint=true declares read-only behavior. Description adds default values for fileTypes, caseSensitive, maxResults, skips hidden entries and .mcp directory, and explains return structure with matches and truncated flag. No contradictions.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence provides essential details without fluff. Structure is clear and easy to parse.

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 5 parameters, 2 required, no enums, and presence of output schema, the description fully explains return structure (matches with file, lineNumber, line text) and truncated behavior. No gaps for agent decision-making.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage. Description repeats defaults already present in schema (fileTypes, caseSensitive, maxResults) and does not add new meaning for parameters like projectPath or pattern. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states 'Plain-text (substring) search across project files' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_project_files' and 'get_debug_output' by focusing on substring matching across codebase.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to find references, callers, or signatures across the codebase', providing clear when-to-use. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but sibling differentiation is implied.

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