search_data_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching 'any file' but doesn't specify what 'matching entries' means (e.g., line-by-line text search, structured data lookup), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. This is inadequate for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the core functionality.

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 complexity of a search operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'matching entry', the search scope (e.g., case-sensitive, partial matches), or the result format, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters (filename, query, page, pageSize). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a search operation, which is already clear from the tool name. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Search') and target ('any file in the data directory for matching entries'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_varptypes' or 'list_data_files', which appear to be more specialized searches, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the various 'search_*types' siblings or 'list_data_files'. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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