search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'regex content search' and 'trigram file-name search' without explaining important behaviors like recursion depth, case sensitivity, performance implications, or side effects. Key behavioral aspects are missing.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could benefit from slightly more structure to separate the two modes clearly.

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 tool has 5 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to cover return values, edge cases, search behavior (e.g., recursive by default?), or how to effectively use the tool. The description is incomplete for the complexity of the tool.

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 60%, and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It clarifies that 'pattern' is used for regex or trigram depending on mode, but does not elaborate on 'max_results' or provide additional context for unspecified parameters. It meets the baseline for a tool with moderate schema coverage.

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 clearly states that the tool performs regex content search or trigram file-name search, specifying two distinct modes via the 'mode' parameter. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'ls' or 'read_file' which could also be used for searching, but given the sibling list, no similar search tool is present, so it's reasonably 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 only states what the tool does without any guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or situations where other tools might be more appropriate. There is no explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' advice.

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