search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return content (paths and line numbers) but says nothing about whether the search is recursive, how hidden/ignored/binary files are handled, case sensitivity, result limits, or performance cost on large trees.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the return shape is included efficiently. It is arguably too terse for the missing behavioral and parameter detail, but nothing written is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained further. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should cover the 'root' parameter, search scope, and traversal behavior — none of which appear.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that 'query' is the string being searched; the 'root' parameter and its default of '.' are never mentioned, so an agent gets no guidance on scoping the search directory.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search all files for a string') plus the return shape (matching file paths and line numbers). The phrase 'for a string' implicitly distinguishes it from the literal-string work of semantic_search, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'for a string' suggests literal matching, which contrasts weakly with the sibling semantic_search. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over semantic_search, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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