pleach_grep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that search is over conversation text, not tool dumps, and that results are returned newest-first with snippets. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or side effects, but for a search tool this is reasonable context.

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?

Two dense sentences deliver the core purpose, scope, an example, and output behavior with zero filler. The description is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description explains what it returns (sessions with snippets) and ordering (newest-first). It lacks edge cases like empty results or handling of all_projects/case_sensitive, but the overall context is sufficient for basic use.

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 60%, with descriptions for cwd, term, and limit. The description does not add further parameter semantics; all_projects and case_sensitive remain unexplained. Since coverage is moderate, the description should compensate, but it does not provide additional detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across session transcripts' and clarifies scope by saying 'conversation text, not tool dumps'. It even gives an example question it answers, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like pleach_log or pleach_show.

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?

It provides an explicit example use case ('which branch was the one where we worked out X?') implying when to use it, and adds an exclusion ('not tool dumps'). However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond that exclusion.

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