pathgrove_search_content

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real value beyond them: traversal-order results, UTF-8/UTF-16/32 BOM handling, that time/read/file limits and skipped files are explicitly reported, and that there is no date ordering or global pagination. That last point is exactly the kind of surprise-surfacing detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the core differentiator in the first sentence and the caveats after. The line-broken formatting is slightly awkward but no sentence is padding.

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?

With an output schema present, return shape need not be described, and the notable behavioral caveats (limits, skipped files, no pagination) are covered. The remaining gap is search-semantics detail for the schema's undocumented parameters.

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?

Reported schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it only partially does: it explains encoding support and the presence of limits (relevant to extensions and max_results) but says nothing about path scoping, recursive behavior, match_case, or match_whole_word semantics. Useful but not compensatory.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource (search text inside file contents, not filenames) and implicitly contrasts with the filename-index sibling. It stops short of naming siblings like pathgrove_search, so an agent must infer the routing rather than being told.

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?

'Without waiting for the filename index' implies the use case (content search when the index is stale or irrelevant), but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no sibling is named as the alternative for filename-based lookup. Usage is 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.