Search regex (ripgrep)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: output is ranked, sandbox-wrapped, highlighted, resolved to indexed chunks, and depends on external binaries. It does not mention pagination or limit behavior, but the output schema exists to cover return details.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and then add essential details. Every phrase earns its place—output format, scoping, and prerequisites—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?

Given the presence of an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, output characteristics, glob scoping, and external dependencies. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results. The only minor gap is limit semantics, but the schema default mitigates that.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains glob ('Restrict file scope') and pattern implicitly via 'Regex search', but limit is not mentioned at all. The schema provides the default and type, but not the meaning. This partial coverage leaves limit semantics undocumented.

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 opens with 'Regex search via ripgrep', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly differentiates this tool from sibling search_text. It further specifies the output format (ranked sandbox-wrapped match lines with term highlighting) and the prerequisite tools, leaving no doubt about what the tool does.

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?

It provides clear usage context: it is for regex search, file scope can be restricted with glob, and it requires rg and datacron index. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is distinct enough that no exclusion is necessary.

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