grep

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the use of system grep recursive and line-number flags, but lacks details on safety (read-only), handling of binary files, or performance considerations. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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 sentence, very concise and front-loaded. However, it could include slightly more detail (e.g., return format) without becoming verbose. The current length is acceptable but just above minimal.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too terse. It does not explain output format, error handling, or how parameters interact (e.g., search_path vs project_path). More context is needed for an agent to use it confidently.

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 only 25% (only 'include' has a description). The description adds that 'pattern' is a regex, but does not explain 'project_path', 'search_path', or their defaults/relationships. The description should compensate for the low schema coverage but does not sufficiently detail parameter meaning.

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 the action ('Search for a regex pattern in files') and specifies the tool's behavior (uses system grep with -r -n). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'bash' or 'read'.

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 (for regex pattern searching in files) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'bash' (which could also run grep) or 'search_compliance_docs'. No guidance on when not to use this tool.

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