search_project

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

Annotations state readOnlyHint=true, so the description's addition of default values, hidden-entry skipping, and .mcp directory exclusion adds useful behavioral context. It also mentions truncation behavior, which is beyond annotations and helps set expectations for large result sets.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then packs details into a compact paragraph. Every sentence carries information, though the default-value repetition is slightly redundant. Structure is efficient and scannable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed, but the description still summarizes matches[] format and truncation, which is helpful. Combined with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete, missing only explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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 all parameters. The description repeats defaults for fileTypes, caseSensitive, and maxResults, which is redundant but not harmful. It adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Plain-text (substring) search across project files') and clarifies scope by naming example targets (references, callers, signatures). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_project_files or get_scene_dependencies, which enumerate rather than search.

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?

Gives clear context ('to find references, callers, or signatures across the codebase'), which implies when to use it. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to distinguish use cases.

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