list_grep_searches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that it lists searches but does not disclose what happens if the document is closed, whether it returns names and/or patterns, or any side effects (though listing is likely read-only). The analogy is helpful but does not cover behavioral details.

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 concise sentence, with the analogy adding value without unnecessary length. It is front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (zero params, no output schema), the description is mostly complete for an agent to know what it does. However, it lacks details on the return format or any behavior in edge cases (e.g., no searches found). For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but could be improved.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, but the description adds little beyond stating the tool lists searches; it could have elaborated on the structure of the listing (e.g., names vs. patterns). Thus, a 3 is appropriate.

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 lists saved GREP searches in the document, using a specific verb and resource. It also provides a helpful analogy ('like DATUM search for dates') to clarify the concept. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, though no sibling seems to offer similar functionality.

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 implies usage when the agent needs to know available GREP searches, and the analogy helps understanding. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., document must be open). With no annotations, more explicit guidance would be better.

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