Search project text

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds 'bounded text files' and 'authorized project' scope, but does not disclose whether the search is substring or exact, the result format, or performance characteristics. These details remain unspecified.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Search') and scope ('literal string across bounded text files'). Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having six parameters and no output schema, the description is extremely brief. It does not explain what 'bounded text files' means, the default behavior of parameters, or what the tool returns. While annotations cover safety, an agent would be uncertain about output structure and edge cases, making the description insufficiently 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 0%, and the description makes no mention of parameters. While parameter names like 'query', 'extensions', and 'caseSensitive' are self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the absence of schema descriptions, offering no additional meaning for any of the six 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 clearly states a specific action, 'Search for a literal string', on a bounded resource, 'bounded text files in an authorized project'. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_file and list_files, and no ambiguity exists about its core function.

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 implies its use case (finding a literal string) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. The phrase 'bounded text files' hints at scope but does not clarify which files qualify, leaving the usage context implied rather than stated.

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