Search text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the 'literal' qualifier, implying exact matching not regex, which is useful. However, no other behavioral traits (e.g., case sensitivity, encoding) are disclosed.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part of the description adds value, making it highly concise.

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?

The description omits critical context: no mention of optional parameters (path, maxResults), no explanation of output, and no performance or scope constraints. For a search tool with multiple parameters, this is insufficient.

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. It does not explain any of the four parameters (workspaceId, pattern, path, maxResults) beyond the tool's generic purpose. The word 'literal' hints at pattern behavior but provides no actual parameter semantics.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'search', the resource 'literal text pattern', and the scope 'inside an open workspace'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which are search tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like file_read or git_diff could be relevant for different search needs, but no contextual advice is given.

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