mavis_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (file:line:match lines) and the backend selection behavior (ripgrep if available, else node recursive search), which adds transparency about performance and fallback. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases like regex syntax differences or hidden file behavior, so it's not fully comprehensive.

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 extremely concise, using three short sentences to convey purpose, output format, and implementation. Every sentence 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?

Given the moderate complexity and lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return format and execution behavior. It does not mention any limitations such as gitignore behavior, but for a simple search tool, it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching for a regex pattern across files in the workspace, with a specific output format of file:line:match lines. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on regex search across the workspace.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mavis_read or mavis_bash. It only describes the tool's execution strategy (ripgrep vs node fallback), not usage context or exclusions.

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