mcquest_search

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It starts with 'READ ONLY' and describes what the operation returns, including 'limited surrounding context,' giving agents a useful safety and scope profile. It could add more about limits but covers the core behavior well.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with the 'READ ONLY' safety cue, followed by the operation and return details. Every clause earns its place and no filler is present.

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 plus output schema covers the basic invocation, and role plus schema defaults cover much of the rest. Still, with zero parameter descriptions and several sibling search tools, it would benefit from one sentence clarifying file_pattern or when to use the doc search variant.

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%, yet the description adds meaning only for pattern by saying it's a regular expression. The remaining parameters—path, max_results, file_pattern, context_lines, and case_sensitive—rely entirely on their titles and defaults, so the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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?

Describes a specific operation—search MCQuest source files using regex—and explicitly mentions the output (paths, line numbers, matching lines, surrounding context). It differentiates on resource type by saying 'source files', but it does not name sibling tools, so it stops short of the full 5 rating.

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 'prefer this for locating code patterns' gives a clear general context. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer how this differs from mcquest_search_docs and other sibling search/list tools.

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