live_text_search

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that it is 'read-only and explicitly live,' which reinforces but doesn't contradict annotations. No additional behavioral traits like pagination or limits are disclosed, but the description is consistent and adds some context.

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 (3 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states main action, second clarifies default/option, third gives usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 does not provide sufficient context for many parameters (e.g., pathGlob, maxFiles). It lacks details on return format or how to use optional parameters effectively. The output schema might help, but the description should cover more.

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?

Despite 9 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description only highlights 'fixedStrings' and implicitly 'query.' It does not explain other parameters like pathGlob, maxFiles, projectId, etc. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Raw live filesystem text search: run ripgrep over the attached project root and return bounded file/line matches.' It also specifies default behavior (fixed-string matching) and regex option, distinguishing it from sibling tools like reef_ask.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Prefer reef_ask for bounded quoted literal questions; use this when you need regex, custom glob scope, or raw full match inventories.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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