Search in project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: 'literal text' (non-regex) and 'text files' (excludes binaries), but it does not disclose recursion depth, hidden file handling, or match limits beyond what schema defaults hint at.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it appropriately concise.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the result looks like (e.g., list of file paths, match snippets). It also omits behavioral details like recursion depth, hidden files, or case sensitivity, which are left to schema defaults. The tool is moderately complex (6 parameters), and the description is too thin to be considered complete.

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 33%, covering query and projectPath. The description adds no meaning for maxDepth, maxMatches, caseSensitive, or includeHidden, leaving their semantics to defaults and names. The term 'literal text' reinforces the query description but does not compensate for the other four parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'search', identifies the resource as 'text files under a project directory', and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like read_file and list_project_files. The use of 'literal text' further clarifies that regex is not supported.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_file or list_project_files. The description does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference any exclusion criteria like binary files or symlinks.

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