search_text

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 discloses the output format as 'capped `file:line: line`' and mentions widening the search for docs/config text via the docs parameter. However, it lacks explicit statements about safety (read-only) or potential limitations like rate limits.

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: two sentences plus an arrow note. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the core purpose. No fluff.

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 no output schema, the description partially covers return format ('capped file:line: line'). It covers key parameters and usage context but omits details on maxResults and projectPath. For a search tool with 6 parameters, it is fairly complete but not exhaustive.

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 67%; the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the 'docs' parameter behavior ('widen the sweep to docs/config text') and clarifying that 'path' searches one file and 'glob' filters basename. It does not cover projectPath or maxResults, but those are somewhat self-explanatory. The total value added is moderate.

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 performs raw text/regex search, specifies the resource (text like string literals, comments, config), and distinguishes it from sibling search_symbol. The verb 'search' and resource 'text' are explicit.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('when you need text, not symbols') and when not to ('For code symbols prefer search_symbol'). It also mentions it replaces Bash grep, providing clear alternatives.

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