search_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what exactly is returned, whether results are limited, or whether special permissions are required. The default-branch checkout detail provides some useful scope, but not enough behavioral transparency.

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 clear sentence with no filler. The key action and scope are front-loaded, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or parameter names.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter tool, and the description is enough to guess the intended call. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the lack of detail about return format, query semantics, and read-only behavior leaves a noticeable gap for an agent deciding how to use the invokes correctly.

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 only names and string types for query and project_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description helps interpret query as a content-search term and project_id as a project scope, but it does not provide explicit per-parameter guidance or query syntax.

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 identifies a specific verb (Search), resource (file contents), and scope (a project's default branch checkout). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files and read_file, which operate on filenames or file content retrieval rather than content search.

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 the intended use: finding where content appears in a project's files. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over list_files, read_file, or grep-like alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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