Search Local Workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by labeling the search as 'literal' and 'bounded,' which suggests exact text matching and enforced limits, though it does not explain the concrete bound or return behavior.

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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though it achieves this by leaving parameter-level detail to the schema.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the one-line description is minimally adequate: the field names and defaults clarify many optional parameters. However, it does not define 'literal' (e.g., case sensitivity), specify what 'bounded' limits, or indicate the result format, so an agent still has notable gaps when invoking it.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the six parameters, but it only loosely implies query and workspace. It never mentions maxDepth, maxFiles, extensions, or maxResults, leaving their semantics to the schema field names and constraints.

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 ('search') and resource ('local workspace'), and 'literal bounded' clarifies the scope as exact-match and limited. It is distinguishable from execute/delegate siblings, but it does not explicitly contrast with the closely related discover_local_workspace, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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 phrase 'inside a safe workspace' implies a constrained read-only environment, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name sibling alternatives such as discover_local_workspace or execute_local_code_task, so an agent must infer that this is for simple lookups rather than discovery or execution.

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