search_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain query matching semantics, whether searching is recursive, how the limit applies, or what 'allowed' and 'eligible' mean in practice, leaving important behavior unspecified.

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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and scope of the tool. It is highly concise while still conveying the primary distinction of the tool.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is too thin to be complete. The output schema may define return shape, but the agent still lacks sufficient behavioral and parameter context to invoke the tool 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 0%, and the description adds only minimal meaning to the parameters. It implies that path may point to a file or directory and that query is textual, but it does not clarify the format, interpretation, or interplay of path, query, and limit.

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 clear verb and resource: searching text content within one file or all eligible files under a directory. It differentiates well from sibling tools like search_file_names and read_text_excerpt by scope, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 text inside an allowed file or files under an allowed directory. It gives context but provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer a sibling tool instead, and 'eligible' is left undefined, making the usage boundary somewhat vague.

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