find_in_all_file_content

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: case-insensitive search, returns newline-separated paths only (not excerpts), returns a message when no matches, searches all readable files, and skips binary files. This goes beyond a simple 'find' and sets correct expectations.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear Args, Returns, and Note sections. The first sentence gives the core purpose, and all subsequent information is necessary and directly useful. No redundant or vague wording.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to use the parameter, return format, edge cases (no matches, binary files), and integration with sibling tools. It is complete without being verbose.

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?

Although the schema only defines 'query' as a string with 0% coverage, the description compensates thoroughly: explains case-insensitivity, accepts words/phrases/partial text, and provides concrete examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool finds a query in the content of all files and returns file paths. It uses a specific verb (find), defines the resource (file contents), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_files (filename search) and get_file_content (reading files).

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 description explicitly says 'For filename searches, use find_files() instead', providing a clear alternative. It also advises using get_file_content() on returned paths, showing how to combine tools effectively.

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