search_text

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly and idempotent), the description adds meaningful behavior: recursive traversal, UTF-8 restriction, and automatic skipping of generated and sensitive paths. This gives the agent useful operational expectations that annotations alone do not convey.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes relevant scoping information: search, text type, recursion, workspace boundary, and excluded paths.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema plus safety annotations, but the lack of parameter guidance and explicit usage conditions leaves gaps. The description covers the main search behavior and scope, yet an agent is left to infer parameter semantics from names and defaults.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. While names and defaults like max_results and case_sensitive are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify how path interacts with the workspace root or how query is matched.

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 identifies the action (search), the resource (UTF-8 text), and the scope (recursively under the configured workspace). It is distinct from siblings like list_files and read_file because it targets file contents rather than filenames or file reads, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies use when an agent needs to find matching text inside files under the workspace, but it does not state when to prefer this over list_files or read_file. The usage context is present, but explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance is missing.

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