search_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses recursive traversal, line-level result reporting, automatic skipping of build/version-control directories and binary files, and why that matters for performance.

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: short lead sentence, concrete use cases, then the key skipping behavior and rationale. Every sentence earns its place and no space is wasted on generic filler.

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 moderately simple search tool, the combination of description, schema defaults, and output schema is largely sufficient. The main gap is the lack of parameter-level semantics, but the parameter names and defaults make the common invocation pattern clear.

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 the description does not compensate for it. It implies that pattern is searched in file contents, but it does not explain regex, file_glob, ignore_case, max_results, or path behavior beyond what the bare parameter names and defaults suggest.

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 and resource: recursively searching file contents and reporting matching lines. The examples 'where is X used' and 'what creates the swapchain' make it clear this is content search, distinguishing it from filename-based search and from reading files individually.

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?

It explicitly says to prefer this tool over reading files one by one and frames it as the cheapest way to locate code in a large tree. It does not explicitly point to find_files as the filename-search alternative, so the exclusion guidance is not quite complete.

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