search_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: ripgrep fallback to a built-in scanner, support for context lines, per-file cap, and files-only mode. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by relevant implementation behavior and a compact feature list. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 10 params and no output schema, the description adequately conveys return format, implementation variance, and supported modes. It does not cover error/timeout behavior, but schema documents timeout_ms and max_results, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, with every parameter documented in the input schema. The description mentions a few high-level features (context lines, per-file cap, files-only) but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Search file contents') and defines the structured output (path, line, column, text matches). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like find_files, which searches filenames, and read_file, which reads specific files.

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 clear context: search file contents for code-level matches, and the files-only mode is positioned as a 'cheap survey' option. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the core use case is unambiguous.

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