search_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful context: it uses ripgrep or a fallback, returns paths/lines and an incomplete flag, and does not interpret regex. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand output and limitations.

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?

Three concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. No filler or redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and output format (paths/lines and incomplete flag) but leaves parameter semantics and usage context unexplained. It is not complete enough to ensure correct invocation without additional inference.

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 five parameters. It mentions 'file-name or content search' which hints at query and files_only, but glob, limit, and directory are not addressed. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb (search) and resource (files), and specifies 'bounded literal' which distinguishes it from general search. It clearly differentiates from siblings like list_directory and read_file by focusing on search, not listing or reading.

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 usage for literal searches but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. It says 'No regex interpretation' which suggests it's not for regex searches, but it doesn't name other tools or provide exclusion criteria.

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