Search Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds strategic guidance but not additional behavioral details such as output truncation, result ordering, or performance characteristics. With annotations present, this is an acceptable but not rich contribution.

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 two short sentences with no redundant phrasing. The primary use case is front-loaded, and the practical guidance about avoiding repeated broad searches earns its place.

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 tool has 10 parameters including an enum-based intent field and no output schema, yet the description only provides use-case guidance. The schema covers parameters and annotations cover read-only safety, but the description does not address result behavior, workspace scope, or structured-search modes, leaving moderate gaps.

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%, so all 10 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's purpose as targeted verification and code lookup, which is specific enough to orient an agent. It stops short of explicitly stating that it searches file contents across the workspace, and it does not differentiate itself from siblings like read or tree.

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 gives explicit context: use for targeted verification or code lookup. It also provides a clear strategy: prefer one specific final search rather than repeated broad verification searches. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it is not a 5.

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