search_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (returns matching files and surrounding lines) but does not mention edge behaviors such as case sensitivity, binary file handling, or ordering of results. It adds value beyond the schema but lacks deeper behavioral 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?

The description is two sentences, both information-dense with no filler. It immediately states the action, then the result and purpose, making it easy to scan and understand the tool's role.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description provides a sufficient high-level understanding of the return value. Combined with a fully documented schema, it is complete enough for a straightforward search tool. It could elaborate on return format, but the essentials are present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the 'query' and 'contextLines' concepts ('keyword or phrase', 'surrounding lines') but does not add substantive meaning beyond what the schema parameters already document. It does not clarify path defaults or maxResults behavior beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('the workspace') and explicitly states the output ('matching files and surrounding lines'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files and read_file, which serve different purposes.

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 when to use it through the clause 'so the assistant can understand relevant context,' indicating it is for gaining situational understanding via keyword search. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but for a simple search tool this is adequate context.

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