search

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuine context beyond that: results are grouped per file with match counts, and large result sets are automatically compacted. It does not state the compaction trigger or what is lost in compact mode, which is the key behavioral detail an agent would want.

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 with zero filler, and the most important fact (code search grouped by file) is front-loaded.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully explains the shape of results and the existence of a compact mode, but it leaves the interaction between maxMatches and perFile, and path/glob scoping, unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps for a moderately complex 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 coverage is 63%, so several parameters (path, query, regex, glob) are undocumented in both places. The description clarifies only that matching is literal unless regex=true, and gestures at compaction without tying it to maxMatches or perFile, so it adds marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Code search (ripgrep), grouped by file') plus the output grouping model, which distinguishes it from siblings like outline and read_symbol. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than declared.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus outline, read_symbol, or project_notes. The description gives operational facts (literal vs regex, compaction) but leaves tool selection entirely to the agent.

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