search_project_artifacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses it's full-text, case-insensitive, plain text query. Describes return format and error (404). Missing explicit read-only confirmation but context implies it. Good behavioral coverage.

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?

Well-structured: header with artifact tool context, clear usage instructions with explicit do-not-use cases, and return/error details. Each sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 two required params, output schema present, and no additional complexity, description fully covers usage, constraints, and error scenario. No gaps for agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds value by clarifying query is plain text and case-insensitive. Does not reiterate schema but enhances understanding. Justification sufficient.

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 performs full-text search across artifact files in a project, matching content and returning files/sections. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like semantic_search and search_code_skeletons by specifying scope and use case.

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?

Explicitly tells when not to use: listing files (use list_project_artifacts) and source code (use search_code_skeletons). Also directs semantic search to semantic_search. Provides clear context for appropriate use.

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