Grep across projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it runs on local snapshots that refresh automatically when Overleaf reports changes, which tells the agent about data freshness and offline 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then behavior then routing. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers result format (file:line), snapshot freshness, and sibling routing. Minor gaps remain (no explicit note on projects-argument defaulting beyond the schema), but it is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 70%, so the schema documents most parameters (include, projects, refresh, maxResults, contextLines, caseSensitive). The description only echoes that search can be exact/regex and that context is optional, adding little syntax or default detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource (regex/text search via ripgrep across projects) with concrete output shape (file:line results) and names the sibling it is not ("search"). An agent can distinguish it from among the 21 sibling tools without opening a schema.

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?

"For topic-style questions use 'search' instead" explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it, which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of a full when/when-not treatment (e.g., no guidance on scope selection or refresh timing), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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