Search files by name or content

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: symlinks are skipped and results are capped at max_results. It stops short of saying how truncation is surfaced or how results are ordered, which matters for a capped search.

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?

Three compact sentences, no redundancy, and the core semantics are front-loaded before the secondary caveats (symlinks, result cap). Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 8 optional params, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics an agent needs to select and call the tool. The remaining gap is the shape/ordering of returned matches, which a capped multi-mode search would ideally state.

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 every parameter including defaults is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description only re-touches glob, query, and max_results in prose without adding format, precedence (glob vs. query), or interaction details beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb (recursively search) plus resource (files) and two matching modes (glob on names/paths, regex on contents), which is more precise than the title alone. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like list_dir or read_file, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'optionally a regular expression in their contents' implies the two usage modes (name-only glob vs. content grep), which is useful implied guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_dir/read_file, nor any exclusion or prerequisite, so usage remains inferred rather than stated.

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