Search Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Description adds only usage guidance, not structural/behavioral details like result limits, regex dependency, or intent semantics; nothing contradicts 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?

Two terse sentences with no filler; the primary use case is front-loaded and the anti-pattern ('repeated broad verification searches') is stated in one phrase.

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 10-parameter tool with an intent enum and symbol override, the description gives little orientation beyond 'code lookup' and the one-search preference. The schema descriptions carry the burden; an agent can still call it correctly, but a note on when to use symbol/intent modes or when read/tree would be better would make it 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 parameter meanings are already documented (query, glob, regex, intent, symbol, etc.). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, so it stays at the baseline 3 rather than compensating further.

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?

Title and description identify a file-content lookup operation ('targeted verification or code lookup') with a clear resource. It distinguishes the tool from sibling read/tree by emphasizing targeted final search rather than broad repeated scans, though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly.

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?

Description explicitly states when to use ('targeted verification / code lookup') and imposes a usage rule ('Prefer one specific final search instead of repeated broad verification searches'). It doesn't enumerate alternative tools, but gives enough context to choose search over broad repeated verification.

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