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. It discloses the scope ('repo index'), the fields searched, and the fact it's a substring match, but omits details like case sensitivity, pagination, or side effects. Acceptable for a read-only search tool but not exhaustive.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. The verb 'search' leads, and the appositive list of fields adds necessary detail without wordiness. Ideal conciseness.

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 simple two-parameter search tool, the description covers the core behavior and scope. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. Minor details like case sensitivity or result limits are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'query' is the substring and 'root_path' scopes the search to a repo, but lacks examples or constraints (e.g., pattern type, path format). Provides some added meaning but leaves room for ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb (search) and resource (repo index), and enumerates the searchable fields (fileName/description/funcs). It differentiates from siblings like set_description and index_repository by its explicit scope and search semantics.

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 implied by 'substring search' and the mention of 'repo index,' but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor cross-referencing to sibling tools. It's adequate but not explicit about alternatives.

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