Search text

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: literal matching is the default, regex must be explicitly enabled, and ripgrep is the preferred backend. These are non-obvious operational details that help an agent predict behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 very short and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by the key mode toggle and engine preference. No filler exists, though 'rg preferred' is terse and could be clearer for agents unfamiliar with ripgrep shorthand.

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 an output schema and read-only annotations present, the description provides a minimally viable invocation: root and pattern are required, literal is the default, regex is available, and limits have defaults. However, it leaves ambiguity around what root should be (directory vs file), search scope/recursiveness, and when to prefer this over file_grep or file_search.

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 must compensate, but it only clarifies the pattern/regex relationship ('literal by default, regex=true for patterns'). It provides no additional meaning for root, max_matches, or case_sensitive beyond their names and schema defaults.

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 action ('Search contents') and clearly communicates that the tool performs text search, with literal matching by default and optional regex. It is clear enough to distinguish from a web or wiki search, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from content-search siblings like file_grep or file_search.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as file_grep, file_search, or web_search. 'rg preferred' hints at the underlying engine but does not explain when this tool should be chosen, what prerequisites exist, or when another sibling would be more appropriate.

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