live_text_search

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

The description states the tool is read-only and explicitly live, which is consistent with annotations declaring readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. It adds value by mentioning it runs ripgrep over the attached project root and defaults to fixed-string matching. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with purpose and tool identity. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 has 9 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context but omits details on output bounding (maxMatches, maxFiles), filtering options, and return format. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% for 9 parameters, the description compensates only by explaining the fixedStrings parameter (default fixed-string, pass false for regex). Other parameters like projectId, projectRef, pathGlob, caseSensitive, etc., are not described, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 identifies the tool as a live filesystem text search using ripgrep, returning bounded file/line matches. It specifies that it is code-intelligence and live. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cross_search or tool_search, which also perform text search.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when the indexed snapshot may be stale or when exact text search is appropriate. It does not list when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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