cascade_remote_grep

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the READY-handle prerequisite. It does not state return format, whether pattern is regex by default (literal flag exists), pagination via limit, or what a non-READY handle error looks like.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite second. No filler, though the second sentence is terse enough to feel under-informative rather than optimally dense.

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?

An 8-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage needs more than two sentences. The description omits the regex/literal default, path scoping behavior, and result-limit semantics, leaving meaningful 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 50%, so the description should compensate, but it mostly repeats the required handle constraint ('READY handle'). It adds nothing for glob, path, limit, context, literal, or ignoreCase, leaving those to the partially-documented schema.

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/grep) plus the resource (text content within files) and scope (opened remote target), making it clearly distinct from read/edit/ls siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from cascade_remote_find, so an agent must infer the grep-vs-find boundary.

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?

Provides one concrete prerequisite ('Requires a READY handle'), which is real usage context. However it offers no guidance on when to use this versus cascade_remote_find or cascade_remote_read, leaving the alternative-selection decision implied.

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