search_text

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions workspace restrictions but does not state if the tool is read-only, how it handles non-UTF-8 files, or potential resource limits. The brief description omits critical transparency details about side effects, permissions, or rate 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?

While the description is a single short sentence, it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It lacks structure such as separating purpose from usage or behavioral notes. Being too brief for a complex tool reduces effectiveness.

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 tool complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is extremely incomplete. It does not indicate return format (e.g., list of matches, file paths, context lines), pagination, error handling, or how glob patterns work. The agent cannot fully understand how to use the tool correctly.

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 parameter description coverage is 0%, yet the description fails to explain any of the 9 parameters (e.g., query, root, regex, max_results, context_lines, exclude_globs, include_globs, case_sensitive, max_file_bytes). The agent must rely solely on the schema titles, which are minimal ('Query', 'Regex', etc.). This is insufficient for correct usage.

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 clearly states the action ('search') and resource ('UTF-8 text files') and the scope ('inside allowed workspace roots'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_text' (which reads entire files) by focusing on searching. However, it does not specify that it supports regex or case-sensitive search, which could disambiguate from simpler search tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_text' or 'inspect'. No context for when to prefer search_text over other file reading or consultation tools. The agent is left to infer usage without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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