search_file_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a search operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details in a structured format. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter explanations more seamlessly. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and differentiation from siblings. The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but other gaps remain, making it adequate but with clear room for improvement.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters with brief explanations ('List of file paths to search in', 'Text to search for', 'Number of characters of context around matches'), adding some meaning beyond the schema's property names. However, it doesn't specify formats (e.g., file path syntax), constraints, or examples, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search for text within specific files.' This is a specific verb ('search') with resource ('text within specific files'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_files' (which might search file names/metadata vs. content), leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search_files', 'get_file_info', 'list_files', and 'read_file', there's no indication of how this tool differs in use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to choose appropriately.

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