search_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the '(read-only)' qualifier, which is valuable context about safety. However, it doesn't describe other important behaviors like whether the search is recursive, case-sensitive, or what the output format looks like (matches, line numbers, etc.).

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every element ('search for regex pattern', 'within files', 'in specified directory', 'read-only') 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (regex search across files), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and safety qualifier but lacks details about search behavior (recursive?), output format, or error handling. For a search tool with no structured output documentation, more completeness would be helpful.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'regex pattern' and 'specified directory' but provides no extra syntax, format, or usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search for a regex pattern within files') and resource ('in a specified directory'), and includes the '(read-only)' qualifier. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_files' or 'read_content' beyond the regex search aspect.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_files' for directory listing or 'read_content' for file reading. It mentions the directory scope but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or sibling tool comparisons.

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