search_files

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: search scoped to res://, regex support via regex=true, and output format as file:line matches. This provides meaningful context about how the tool behaves.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no redundant wording. Every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema, so the description must explain return values. It mentions 'file:line matches' but lacks specifics on exact data structure, max parameter behavior, and edge cases like no matches. Adequate for a simple search tool, but with gaps.

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 only 25% (only ext described). The description clarifies query as a substring or regex pattern and explains regex=true toggles regex mode, but max is left unexplained and ext is not elaborated beyond the schema. Partial compensation for low 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?

Description clearly states it searches file contents under res:// for a substring or regex, and returns file:line matches. This is a specific verb+resource+scope and distinguishes from siblings like read_file (reads entire files) and find_nodes (searches scene tree).

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?

No explicit when/when-not guidance for selecting this tool over alternatives like find_classes or find_methods. The purpose is clear, so usage is implied, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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