grep_scripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only search and hints at two matching modes (Lua pattern vs substring) but never states which is used, whether matching is literal or regex-flavored by default, whether the search is scoped or global, or what kind of results come back. Saying 'Lua pattern / substring' actually introduces ambiguity rather than resolving it.

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?

A single tight sentence with the object of the search front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity here reflects under-specification as much as economy.

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 search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, this is insufficient. An agent cannot know the default match semantics, the scope of the search, or the result shape, and there is no way to discover this from the structured fields.

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% and neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description only gestures at the 'pattern' parameter (and muddies whether it is a Lua pattern or a plain substring); the 'root' parameter, which likely controls what the search is scoped to, is completely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (script sources) plus what it matches (Lua pattern or substring), which is more informative than a bare name restatement. However it does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_scripts, read_script, or find_instances, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. Nothing tells the agent whether to prefer grep_scripts over list_scripts plus read_script, or when a substring search is appropriate versus a full read.

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