搜索文本

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and requiresSourceAccess=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: ripgrep is preferred and a Node fallback is used when ripgrep is missing, which can affect performance and regex support. This goes beyond the structured annotations and does not contradict them.

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 short sentences with no filler: purpose first, implementation second. It is easy to scan and every word earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain return format, whether it searches file contents, matching behavior, or the effect of path/glob/limit. Given the number of parameters and the many search-like sibling tools, this is not enough for confident invocation.

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?

The description adds almost no parameter meaning beyond implying that query is the text to search. There are six parameters and the schema has no property descriptions, so glob, path, limit, regex, and case_sensitive semantics are left entirely to inference.

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 states a clear action and resource: searching text in the workspace. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as find_files (likely filename search) or codegraph_search, so the top differentiation criterion is not met.

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 no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. The ripgrep/Node fallback note is an implementation detail, not guidance about when to choose search_text over find_files, codegraph_search, or exec_command.

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