search_files_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic search function and does not mention recursion depth, file type filtering, result ordering, case handling, or performance implications. The schema params (e.g., caseSensitive, maxResults) hint at behavior but are not described in the tool description itself.

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 a single sentence with zero redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. While it is terse, appropriate conciseness is achieved; no word 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?

Given the tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for a new agent to fully understand invocation context. It fails to mention return format, search behavior (e.g., regex support, recursion), or how this tool relates to other file operations. The schema helps with parameter basics but does not compensate for the lack of behavioral and usage context.

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%, and all five parameters have clear descriptions (pattern, directory, maxResults, filePattern, caseSensitive). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No parameter is undocumented or unclear.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Search') and resource ('text patterns in files within a directory'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's purpose. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like search_symbols_code or find_and_replace_code, which could also be interpreted as searching for text patterns. A more specific mention of content search with regex/glob support would elevate the score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusive use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools such as search_symbols_code or list_files_code clearly have distinct purposes, but the description fails to indicate why one would choose this tool over them.

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