Search project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format (file:line) but does not explicitly state read-only nature, pagination behavior, or any auth/permission requirements. The non-destructive nature is implied but not stated.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds relevant information, and there is no repetition of schema details.

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 search tool, the description adequately covers the purpose, search scope, and output format. It does not explain pagination or case sensitivity defaults, but these are represented in the schema, and the missing output schema is partially offset by 'Returns file:line'.

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 50% (kind, query, project documented), but limit, offset, and case_sensitive are undocumented. The description does not compensate for these missing parameters, adding little beyond naming the file kinds that map to the kind parameter.

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 it greps across scripts, scenes, and resources, and lists what it finds (symbol definitions, node types, signal names, TODOs). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_files and scene_tree.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Grep' and the description of what it searches, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like list_files. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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