search_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It explicitly says the tool searches across all knowledge base files and returns excerpts with context, giving a clear read-oriented behavior. It does not mention details like case sensitivity, result ordering, or failure behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description is adequate for calling the tool but leaves gaps because there is no output schema. 'Returns relevant excerpts with context' is vague about what fields are included (e.g., file name, match location), and the description does not mention behavior like maxResults implications or no-match outcomes.

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 100%, with each parameter having a meaningful description. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that search is across all files. Per the calibration baseline, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), the resource ('all knowledge base files'), and the output ('relevant excerpts with context'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_file_content by focusing on cross-file keyword search rather than retrieving a specific file's content.

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 implies when to use the tool—when searching across knowledge base files—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The contrast with get_file_content is left implicit rather than stated.

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