Search design sources and reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are bounded, truncation and oversized-skipped files are surfaced explicitly, and binary bodies are not inferred — all useful for interpreting output.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the core action and evidence format, with no filler. Every clause adds a distinct constraint or behavior.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the key result-handling behaviors (bounded output, explicit truncation/skips) and scope limits, which is enough for correct invocation. It stops short of naming alternatives or describing matching semantics, leaving minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including the nonempty-literal and case-sensitivity semantics. The description's 'literal string' wording only mildly reinforces the query semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (search a literal string across project text files) plus the evidence format (file/line). It also scopes what it does NOT cover by noting binary GDF/SCF content is excluded, which differentiates it from gdf/scf and project_read_file siblings, though no sibling is named outright.

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 'supported project text files' and 'binary GDF/SCF content is not guessed' phrases implicitly delimit when it applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative for reading a known file or searching binary content.

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