search_output

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

The description does not include any annotations, so it carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains how the tool selects executions (current or most recent when omitted), how matching modes work, and how context lines are added. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., it is read-only), whether it modifies any state, or any error conditions. The description is mostly about operation mechanics, not behavioral caveats, so it partially covers transparency but leaves gaps.

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 section headers for '选择与匹配' and '命中上下文', and the prose is concise. Each sentence provides useful information without redundancy. The description is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool, covering key aspects without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the complexity of this tool (search with modes, context lines, stream selection) and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It provides enough information for an agent to understand how to use it correctly. It references sibling tools for parameter selection, which reduces the need for repeating those rules. However, it could mention that this tool is read-only (non-destructive) and what the return format looks like (a list of matches with context), but the absence of an output schema is somewhat compensated by the description. Minor gaps exist but overall it's sufficient.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions. The description adds further semantics by explaining the selection rules for 'execution' (same as execution_status) and 'stream' (same as read_output), which are not fully apparent from the schema alone. It also clarifies the behavior of query_mode with examples (literal vs regex vs auto fallback). However, some parameters like max_chars have a schema description already, and the additional description of truncation is consistent but not substantially new. Overall, the description adds meaningful context 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's purpose: searching text or regex in specified output streams of an execution. It names the resource ('execution'), the action ('search'), and the target (output stream), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_output (which reads without searching) and execution_status (which retrieves status). However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool for contrast, though the references to read_output and execution_status in the description imply differentiation.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it explains how to select the 'execution' parameter (same rules as execution_status), how to choose the 'stream' parameter (same values as read_output), and how query_mode behaves with literal vs regex vs auto. It also explains context lines and max_chars truncation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like read_output, though the contrast is implied by describing search-specific features.

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