search_by_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes a search operation but does not state whether it is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits or side effects. The mention of 'indexed files' implies reliance on a pre-built index, but this is not explicitly explained.

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 concise with a single introductory sentence followed by a clear list of parameters in standard docstring format. It is front-loaded with the main verb and purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 covers the core functionality and parameter semantics adequately. Since an output schema exists (as per context signals), return values need not be described. However, it could mention that the tool searches only over already-indexed files, and specify the scope (e.g., all files or a particular repository). Overall, it is sufficient for most use cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful explanations for all parameters: 'query' is a natural language query, 'file_pattern' supports glob patterns or substrings, and 'n_results' defaults to 10. These details go beyond the schema's type information and help the agent understand expected input formats.

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 'Search indexed files, restricting results to paths matching a pattern,' which is a specific verb+resource+constraint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search' (which likely does full-text search without file restriction) and 'search_codebase_by_file' (which may be synonymous but the naming suggests similar functionality). The purpose is explicit and unambiguous.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, especially 'search_codebase_by_file' which appears in the sibling list. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to other search tools. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name and description, which may lead to confusion.

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