Compact code search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behaviors: every occurrence on a line counts, totals are exact unless the scan cap trips, and pagination uses either offset or an opaque cursor. It also explains the optional caret highlight and pre-excluded directories.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and result format. Every additional sentence adds useful detail about pagination, exclusions, and alternatives, with no 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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description explains the return format, pagination behavior, edge cases, and exclusions, making it largely sufficient. The only minor gaps are the undocumented 'regex' and 'ignoreCase' flags, which keep it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is low (38%), so the description compensates by explaining pattern, pathPrefix, limit/offset/cursor, and highlight. However, it does not clarify the 'regex' and 'ignoreCase' boolean parameters, which remain inferable but under-documented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('indexed files'), and immediately specifies the output format ('path:line:col + the matching line'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly pointing to find_definition/find_references for symbol searches.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: use pathPrefix to scope, and prefer find_definition/find_references for symbols. It also notes that vendor/build dirs are already excluded, which informs expectations and prevents redundant filtering.

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