pathgrove_search

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful operational context that the first index build may take time and that progress is reported by pathgrove_index_status, but it does not discuss result completeness, pagination behavior, or search coverage limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and key operational caveat. There is no unnecessary repetition, though it could be tightened slightly.

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?

For a search tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core operation and the first-build latency caveat. However, given the many closely related search siblings, it lacks routing guidance that would help an agent decide between filename/metadata search, content search, type search, and recent-file search.

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 description itself adds no parameter guidance. The nested input schema is unusually rich, documenting query syntax, sort options, pagination, regex, whole-word, and case matching, so the schema carries most parameter semantics. The top-level coverage signal is low, but the visible child-field descriptions compensate substantially.

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?

States a specific action, searching configured roots, and identifies the mechanism as an SQLite filename/metadata index. It does not distinguish itself from several siblings such as pathgrove_search_content, pathgrove_search_by_type, or pathgrove_find_recent, beyond referencing pathgrove_index_status for build progress.

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?

Usage is implied: search filename/metadata via the local index, and use pathgrove_index_status to monitor first-build progress. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling search tools or when another tool is more appropriate.

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