Search remote files

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

Annotations cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description needs only add context beyond that. It adds that the search uses ripgrep and operates on a configured remote root, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose return format, default glob behavior, or interaction with .gitignore, so transparency is limited.

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 of 10 words, directly starting with the action 'Search text'. No filler or repetition, achieving high conciseness.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior. It lacks details on what results look like (matches vs filenames), how glob and limit work, and any usage caveats, making it incomplete for a 4-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter semantics, but it doesn't mention path, pattern, glob, or limit at all. The names are reasonably self-evident, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type/constraint details.

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 ('search') and resource ('files via ripgrep'), clearly indicating a text search operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_files and read_file by focusing on content search. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or contrast with other search-like commands.

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 usage for searching text, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_command or read_file. It mentions 'remote root' as a scoping constraint but doesn't explain when this is preferred over local search tools.

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