qwen_search_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does state the operation and the expected return format, but it does not explain matching semantics (plain text vs regex), the role of the 'pattern' parameter, or whether results are truncated by max_results. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and the result shape without any filler. Every word earns its place, even if more detail is needed elsewhere.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, this description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It covers purpose and return value but leaves parameter semantics and behavioral details unexplained. The presence of an output schema helps with return structure, but not with how to use the inputs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It only vaguely implies that 'query' is the text to search for; it says nothing about 'path', 'pattern', 'max_results', or 'case_sensitive'. With six parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('text inside project files'), and clarifies what the tool returns: matching lines with file paths and line numbers. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like qwen_list_files and qwen_read_file, which list or read files rather than search their contents.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for searching text within project files, not for listing or reading whole files. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is obvious enough from the wording and sibling tool names.

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