Search text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the search is confined to UTF-8 workspace files, but it does not disclose result truncation, preview limits, or other search behavior; this is acceptable given the annotations but not rich.

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 a single active-voice sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, scope, and supported modes, making it easy to scan while avoiding repetition of schema details.

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 10-parameter tool with zero parameter descriptions, the description provides only a high-level overview. It is sufficient for a simple query-only invocation because defaults are in the schema and the output schema exists, but it leaves filtering, pathing, and result-control semantics largely unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at query and regex via 'text or regex matches'. It does not explain glob, path, include/exclude_globs, max_results, context_lines, case_sensitive, or max_preview_bytes, leaving most of the 10 parameters semantically undocumented.

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 action ('Search'), a clear resource ('UTF-8 workspace files'), and the supported modes ('text or regex matches'). This is distinct from siblings like read_file or list_files, so an agent can tell this is a content-search tool rather than a file-reading or listing tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_file or grep-like behavior, nor any exclusions or conditions that would route an agent here. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the generic search verb.

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