search_snapshot_text

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 that snapshots are immutable, that literal text search includes unindexed files, and that absence conclusions require pagination to completion. It omits permissions, result shape, default behaviors, and error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 two tight sentences with the core scope stated first and the critical pagination/absence caveat second. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler.

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?

This is a relatively complex tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions has_more and complete but does not define the return structure or explain most parameters, so an agent would still need to infer too much to call it correctly.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate for undocumented fields. It only implies that query is literal and that limit/offset relate to pagination, but provides no semantics for glob, extensions, path_prefix, project, case_sensitive, or the pagination parameters. Coverage gaps remain substantial.

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 states a specific verb and resource: search literal text across immutable snapshot files. It also clarifies scope by saying it includes files CBM does not index, which implicitly distinguishes it from indexed code search siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative such as search_code, so it falls short of 5.

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 gives important procedural guidance: paginate to has_more=false and require complete=true before drawing absence conclusions. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus search_code, read_snapshot_file, or search_graph. Usage is therefore implied and partially constrained rather than fully guided.

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