search_files

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions returning matches but omits details like case sensitivity, regex vs glob, search scope (entire project?), or any side effects. For a search tool, these are significant gaps.

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 sentence that efficiently states purpose and return structure. No redundant words; front-loads the key action 'grep the project's files'.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 2 required params, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on return format (e.g., what 'context' means), search options, and scope. For a straightforward search tool, more completeness is expected.

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 does not explain the two parameters (projectId, pattern). It does not specify pattern format (e.g., regex, plain text) or required escaping. The agent gets no extra 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 uses a specific verb 'grep' and resource 'project's files', and clearly states what is returned: { path, line, context } matches. This distinguishes it from sibling file tools like list_files and read_file.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many file-related siblings (list_files, read_file, edit_file, delete_file, write_file), the description does not clarify that this tool is for pattern searching, not for listing or reading specific files.

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