search_edgeworker_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It states the tool returns matching file paths, line numbers, and content, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as result limits (max_results), case insensitivity (mentioned in schema but not description), or potential performance impacts.

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 concise with two short paragraphs and example questions. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and every element adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's operation and return types (paths, line numbers, content). It covers the essential use case but could mention the scope 'across all files' more explicitly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond mentioning 'regex pattern'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not extend the schema's context.

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 searches across all files in an EdgeWorker code bundle using a regex pattern. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'EdgeWorker code bundle files', and distinguishes from siblings that operate on other resources or entire files.

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 example questions that imply use cases like finding specific code patterns, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_edgeworker_file for retrieving entire files) or provide any exclusions.

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