search_files

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies that content_search only scans text files (skips binary), and returns matching absolute paths with optional match context. Since no annotations are provided, this description carries the full burden and does so well, although it could mention that the tool is read-only and non-destructive.

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 (5 lines) with bullet points. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then details in a structured list. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, no fluff.

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 existence of an output schema (details of return values), the description provides adequate context: it mentions both name and content search, parameter roles, and the result format. It could benefit from a brief note on performance or limits beyond max_results, but overall it is complete for a search tool.

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?

The input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds some nuance (e.g., 'pattern' uses glob or substring, content_search is text-only) but mostly repeats schema information. The clarification about binary skipping in content_search adds marginal value, keeping this at baseline 3.

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 states 'Search for files by name pattern and/or content substring' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly separates two search modes (name pattern and content substring) and mentions the return format (absolute paths with optional context). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_directory (simple listing) and read_file (reading full content).

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?

While the description effectively explains what the tool does, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies usage for file searching but does not mention exclusions (e.g., when to use other tools like execute_command with grep) or context-specific recommendations.

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