search_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only, scoped search operation over the workspace, which is a useful signal. However, it does not reveal limitations such as whether content search is exact-match, whether file names only are searched, or what the result format looks like.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and target. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the core purpose and aligns with the schema. The behavior—returning matching files or content—is largely self-evident from the word 'search'. It lacks explicit mention of result scope or formatting, but that is a minor gap for this simplicity level.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage: `type` has a clear enum description with 'files' or 'content', and `query` is labeled 'Search query'. The description only loosely mirrors the `type` options ('files or content') and adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource ('files or content in workspace'), making its core function clear. It distinguishes itself from the sibling file-operation tools, none of which are search tools. The phrase 'files or content' is slightly ambiguous on its own, but the schema's `type` enum clarifies it.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative search tool appears among the siblings. The intended usage is implied by the name and description—when you need to locate files or content, invoke this tool—but the description does not state this prescriptively or mention exclusions.

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