web_find

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses case-insensitivity and the search scope (all files in the current working copy), but says nothing about the shape of results, whether matches include file/line context, or how traversal behaves across large trees.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the operation and its most important behavioral modifier (case-insensitive) are stated immediately.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with fully documented schema, the description is close to sufficient. The only material gap is the absence of any hint about what a match looks like, which matters slightly given there is no output schema.

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%: both 'query' and 'limit' are documented in the schema, including the default of 40 matches. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Search') and resource ('text across all files in the current working copy'), so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool, but the siblings (web_read, web_css, web_pages) are functionally distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for locating text, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over web_read or other read tools, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. Minimum-viable implied guidance rather than explicit routing.

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