Search Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by stating extraction is local, cached, and incremental, which implies privacy and performance characteristics. It does not contradict 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and immediately scoped by file formats. The second sentence adds high-value behavioral context without redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only search tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: clear purpose, file scopes, and extraction behavior. It could slightly improve by noting result shape or caveats around indexing staleness, but that is minor given the schema and sibling context.

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%, and each parameter already has meaningful documentation. The description adds broad context about what is searched (extracted text from non-Markdown files), but does not materially extend the semantics of the individual query, limit, folder, or extension parameters.

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 identifies the action ('Search extracted text') and the exact resource scope ('non-Markdown vault files'), specifying concrete file types. This firmly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_notes, which target Markdown notes.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when searching text inside non-Markdown vault files. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use search_notes for Markdown', but the 'non-Markdown' scope strongly implies the intended boundary.

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