search_text

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: regex is disabled for safety because repository text is untrusted, and the search is limited to allowed workspace files. No contradiction with 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 sentences with no filler; the core purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the rationale for regex rejection is concise. Every sentence contributes useful 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 parameters and zero schema descriptions, this description is under-specified. It explains the primary literal-query constraint well but omits the semantics of path, case sensitivity, limits, and timeout, which an agent needs to use the tool correctly in varied scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the query must be literal and bounded. It does not explain path, caseSensitive, maxResults, timeoutMs, maxFileBytes, or maxFiles, leaving most parameters ambiguous.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Search allowed workspace files' with a bounded literal query. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_files and read_file_range by positioning it as text search, and it explicitly scopes the search to allowed files.

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 literal text searches and explicitly explains that regex is rejected, giving a clear 'when not to' signal. However, it does not mention alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over file listing or reading tools.

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