search_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes explicit execution timing and timeout handling, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it omits details like whether the search is recursive, handles binary files, or supports regex. The description partially compensates for missing annotations but is incomplete.

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 moderately concise but includes unnecessary repetition (e.g., 'Kali Agent MCP tool: search_text') and focuses heavily on timing parameters at the expense of explaining the tool's primary function. It could be restructured to state the purpose first, then detail parameters.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain the return value or fields. With 11 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no guidance on prerequisites or edge cases, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly in diverse scenarios. The timing advice is helpful but not enough for completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It covers the timing parameters (expected_runtime_seconds, timeout_seconds, etc.) but fails to explain core search parameters like 'query', 'root', 'glob', 'limit', 'literal', and 'case_sensitive'. The description adds minimal meaning for most parameters, relying on the schema's defaults and names.

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 does not explicitly state that the tool searches file content; it focuses on execution timing. The name 'search_text' hints at the purpose, but the description lacks a clear verb+resource statement. The input schema shows 'root' and 'query' parameters, implying file content search, but the description does not confirm this or differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_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 description provides guidance on timeout settings (e.g., use 'continue_background' for long work) but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_files', 'symbol_search', or grep-like commands. There is no mention of use cases or prerequisites.

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