search_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal case-insensitivity and the return format (matching lines with context), but it omits details like error handling, read-only nature, or pagination. 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, compact sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource. Every phrase adds meaning, with no filler or redundant information.

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 file-search tool with four straightforward parameters and a clear result description, the description is largely complete. It doesn't cover edge cases like missing files or empty matches, but the basic behavior and output are clearly stated.

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%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds little beyond repeating 'case-insensitive substring' and implying context lines. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specifies a clear action ('Search within a specific file'), defines the pattern type ('case-insensitive substring match'), and states the output ('return matching lines with context'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_code, which likely searches across multiple files.

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 phrase 'within a specific file' sets a clear context for use, implying this tool is for file-scoped searches rather than repo-wide searches. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as search_code, so it stops short of a 5.

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