rea_patch_text_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully declare read-only semantics and that the result is matched line numbers. However, it omits behavior an agent needs: whether encoding affects matching, whether results are truncated, and whether matching is case-sensitive or multiline.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the read-only constraint and ends with the return value. Nothing is wasted.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage across four parameters, the description is too thin. It should explain the regex toggle and encoding semantics, and at least hint at result limits or match formatting.

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% for four parameters. The description alludes to pattern (关键字/正则) and file_path (文本/代码文件), but leaves the regex boolean and especially the encoding parameter unexplained in both schema and description.

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 names a specific verb (搜索定位 = search/locate) and resource (文本/代码文件 = text/code files) and states the return shape (命中行号 = matched line numbers). It is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like rea_patch_text_apply or rea_patch_text_restore, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with rea_patch_text_view.

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 text states the operation is read-only (只读), which sets usage context, but never says when to choose this over rea_patch_text_view or how it relates to the apply/verify/restore siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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