search_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two behavioral traits: case-insensitivity and that it searches all project files. However, it does not mention whether the search is exact-substring, supports regex, or any performance implications. For a read-only search operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and key qualifiers. Every element (searches, text, code, all project files, case-insensitive) adds value, with no wasted words or redundant phrasing.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential behavior: scope, case-sensitivity, and the text being searched. It does not describe the return format, but that is not explicitly required in the absence of an output schema. The description is sufficiently complete for a basic tool, though it could mention whether only source code files are searched or all project files.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions ('Name or path of the loaded project' and 'Text to search'), achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating further.

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 uses a specific verb ('Searches') and clearly identifies the resource ('the code of all project files') and a key qualifier ('case-insensitive'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like find_references or find_any_usages, but its broad text-search scope across all files is distinct enough to be clear.

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. It does not mention similar search tools as alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. A user must infer that this is for generic text searches rather than symbol-specific lookups.

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