search_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Search raw source lines' without disclosing query behavior (regex? case-sensitive?), what 'raw source lines' entails, or whether it is safe (e.g., read-only). This is minimal behavioral info.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool, though it could benefit from a bit more detail on parameters.

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?

With no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'raw source lines' are, how results are returned, or any limitations (e.g., indexing scope). The tool requires more context for effective 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 description coverage is 33% (only 'version' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. The required 'query' parameter is left unexplained, and 'limit' is not described. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Search raw source lines.' uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('raw source lines'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'search_symbol' which likely searches for symbols rather than raw text.

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 implies this tool is for raw text search but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'search_symbol' or 'rag_search'. No exclusions or context are provided.

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