search_pawn_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search scope, the output format (file paths, line numbers, context), and the efficiency advantage over reading files. While it does not mention every edge behavior, it is transparent enough for a non-destructive search operation and does not contradict any annotation.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every sentence earns its place: what it searches, what it returns, and why it is preferred over reading files. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, scope, and return values, and the schema handles all parameters. No output schema exists, so the stated return format is valuable. It could be slightly more complete by naming sibling alternatives, but an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already fully documents query, maxResults, and contextLines. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but none is needed because the schema covers semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Search') and resource (text inside .pwn/.inc files) with scope ('across the entire project'). It also explains what is returned: file paths, line numbers, and surrounding context. This clearly distinguishes it from file-reading tools like read_pawn_script.

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 phrase 'Much more efficient than reading entire files' gives direct guidance to prefer this tool over read_pawn_script for locating text. The .pwn/.inc scope and project-wide search imply when it applies, though it does not explicitly exclude sibling tools like search_server_log or fuzzy_find_file. Clear context, but no formal when-not guidance.

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