grep_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavior: matching is case-insensitive and literal (not regex), and results are small context windows rather than full items. It also flags the untrusted-content boundary. It does not state what happens when matches exceed a cap or whether it errors on a missing id.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and matching semantics in one sentence, followed by the return shape and the prompt-injection warning. The safety sentence is boilerplate but load-bearing for an agent handling message content; nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only spec. It covers purpose, matching rules, and the trust boundary well, but leaves the two tuning parameters and any failure behavior (invalid id, no matches) undocumented.

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%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It only conveys that `pattern` is a literal phrase and `id` identifies one item; `max_matches` and `context_chars` are never mentioned despite directly controlling output size and window width.

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?

States a specific verb and scope: find a literal word or phrase within a single item, case-insensitive, returning context windows. The 'within one item' scoping implicitly separates it from the sibling `search` tool, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 one item' implies this is the single-item counterpart to a broader search, and the required `id` parameter reinforces that, but the description never says when to prefer `search` or `get_item` instead. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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