grep_artifacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It implies a read-only search over artifact content and scopes the search to a session, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose what is returned, whether matching is case-sensitive, whether metadata is included, or any rate or access limitations.

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 well-structured with a one-line purpose, a trigger list, and a parameter list. It is concise and scannable, though there is minor redundancy between 'Search artifact content by keyword' and 'Find saved work by topic or term'.

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 purpose, triggers, and parameter semantics, which is strong for a search tool. However, it lacks information about the return format or result contents, and does not clarify how this tool differs from related search tools such as search_knowledge or grep_messages. Given no output schema exists, some return-behavior guidance would improve completeness.

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%, but the description compensates with a 'PARAMETERS' section that explains each parameter: session_id is 'Session to search', pattern is 'Search term (use simple keywords)', agent_id is 'Your agent ID', and created_by is an optional creator filter. This adds practical meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search artifact content by keyword' and clarifies it finds 'saved work by topic or term'. This clearly explains what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling search tools like search_findings or search_knowledge.

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 'AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS' section gives concrete call conditions: when looking for artifacts mentioning a topic, needing prior analysis, or searching across saved work products. This provides clear context for when touse the tool, but it does not state when not to use it or name preferred alternatives.

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