search_markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds one key behavioral trait: results are snippets, not full files. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, discuss performance implications (e.g., strategy default), or mention any potential side effects or limitations.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the essential purpose and key limitation. It wastes no words and front-loads the primary action.

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 moderate complexity, an output schema exists, and all parameters are documented in the schema, the description provides sufficient context for usage. It clearly communicates the core distinction from siblings. Minor gaps remain around when to prefer this over alternatives and metadata about the search results, but these are adequately handled by the schema and tool name.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of all three parameters (query, strategy, max_results) with descriptive text. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond reinforcing the snippet output, which relates to max_results but doesn't explain parameter syntax or interpretation.

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 verb 'search' and resource 'markdown content', and explicitly notes it returns snippets rather than full files. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file, which reads full files, and list_files, which lists 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 provides clear context on what the tool does, and the parenthetical '(not full files)' implicitly guides users away from using it when they need complete file contents. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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