search_in_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('Search...using grep') and explains return value structure, but it does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no modification), permissions required, or behavior on no matches. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no fluff. Each sentence earns its place: one defines the action and method, the other defines output and usage context.

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?

Given no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return values (matching lines, line numbers, context). It also provides usage context. It does not cover edge cases like file-not-found or empty results, but for a read-only search tool with well-specified parameters, this is reasonably complete.

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 every parameter is documented. The description adds minimal semantic value by stating the output includes 'surrounding context' which aligns with the context_lines parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Search for a text pattern in a remote file') and specifies the mechanism ('using grep') and output ('matching lines with line numbers and surrounding context'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_file (reads full file) and replace_in_file (modifies content) by focusing on search/location.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to locate code sections before editing.' This tells agents when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives, though the sibling context implies the distinction.

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