grep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies the tool as read-only and specifies substring matching (from schema). However, it does not disclose case sensitivity, encoding, performance traits, or behavior when the file or pattern is not found.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence of 10 words. Every word is meaningful; no fluff or redundancy. The structure is optimal for quick comprehension.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, simple substring search, output schema exists), the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it returns (lines with numbers). It could mention error handling (e.g., file not found) but is still adequate for most use cases.

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?

Both parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no new meaning beyond 'with line numbers' which is about output. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already 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 ('Return lines'), the resource ('matching pattern in a single file'), and includes output details ('with line numbers'). It distinguishes from siblings like read_file (returns whole file) and search_text (likely multi-file or different semantics).

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 usage for single-file substring search but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_text, grep command in run_command). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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