Searchtext

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers little: it does not say whether `pattern` is a literal substring or a regular expression, whether matching is per-line, whether large files are truncated, or what happens on no matches. It only discloses the return shape, which the output schema already covers.

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?

A single compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The return-shape clause is largely redundant given the output schema, but it costs little and is tucked at the end rather than leading.

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?

The output schema excuses the description from explaining return values, and it has a 3-param surface. Still, the ambiguities that would most change how an agent calls it — regex vs. literal matching, path-target constraints, case sensitivity — are absent from both schema and description, leaving the tool under-specified.

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% across all 3 parameters, so the description must compensate — but it says nothing about `path` (file vs. directory), nothing about whether `pattern` is regex or literal, and never mentions `case_insensitive` or its default. The word 'text' offers only the faintest hint about pattern semantics.

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 (Search) and resource (text within a file), which distinguishes it from ReadFile, FindFiles, and Shell for the likely use case. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from grep-via-Shell or from FindFiles, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling alternatives (FindFiles for filename matching, Shell for general-purpose grep, ReadFile for full contents), and no prerequisites. The agent must infer the routing entirely from the name.

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