search_file

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 that the tool performs a search and returns matching lines with line numbers, which implies a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not mention error cases (e.g., file not found), case-sensitivity behavior (though covered in schema), or whether the search is limited to the first match or all matches. 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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Search'), specifies the target ('a file'), and states the output. There is no wasted wording or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 low complexity (3 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. However, it does not mention potential edge cases like empty results or file access errors, which could be relevant for an agent invoking the tool. Still, it is sufficient for a straightforward search operation.

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%, with all three parameters (file_path, keyword, case_sensitive) having descriptions. The tool description itself does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's mention of 'matching lines with line numbers' clarifies the output but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Search') and resource ('a file'), and specifies the output ('return all matching lines with line numbers'). This clearly distinguishes it from other search tools and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 clearly states what the tool does and the context in which it is used (searching within a file). While there are no explicit exclusions or alternatives, the purpose is self-evident given the tool's name and description. Since there are no sibling tools, this is sufficient.

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