search_scenarios

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does state the search corpus and the return payload (feature + file:line), implying a safe read. It omits result limits, ordering/ranking, and case-sensitivity behavior, which are the remaining behavioral gaps for a search tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the capability and its scope come first, then the usage directive. Every clause 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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully describes the return value, and the single required parameter is well covered. It lacks any mention of result caps or pagination, which is the only meaningful omission for this tool.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond 'Search terms' by spelling out which fields the query matches against (name, step text, tags), which directly informs how to phrase the query.

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 (find/search) and resource (scenarios), and enumerates exactly what fields the full-text search covers: feature name, scenario name, step text and tags. It also states the return shape (matching scenarios with feature and file:line), so an agent knows precisely what it gets.

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?

Explicitly says to use this instead of grepping .feature files when asked to find, list or count tests, which gives a clear trigger condition and names an alternative. It does not, however, contrast with the sibling search_steps, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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