emacs_project_search

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It accurately conveys a read-only search operation, but it does not disclose the return format (e.g., matching file paths), whether the search is recursive, or other search behavior. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part contributes to the core purpose, making it concise and easy to parse.

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 tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description plus schema gives enough to attempt a call, but the agent is left uninformed about what the search returns and how file matching is scoped. For a read-only search tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 the schema documents both parameters adequately. The description adds no extra meaning about regex syntax or path resolution, aligning with the baseline score of 3.

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 action (search), a resource (files in the project), and a criterion (name pattern). This clearly distinguishes it from content-search tools like emacs_org_search and buffer-related tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from emacs_project_files, a likely sibling for listing project files, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to find project files by their name pattern. It gives no explicit context about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer, such as emacs_project_files for listing all files. This leaves usage guidance to inference.

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