Search files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions searching across files but does not disclose key behaviors like the default case-insensitivity (caseInsensitive defaults false), exclusion of hidden files (includeHidden defaults false), or the maximum file size or scope limitations. The agent is left unaware of critical behavioral traits.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. It avoids redundancy, but could benefit from a bit more detail without losing conciseness.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, behavior of parameters, or edge cases (e.g., no matches), leaving the agent with incomplete information to correctly invoke the tool.

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 only 13%, yet the description only mentions 'pattern' and the choice of literal or regex. It does not explain 'path', 'glob', 'caseInsensitive', 'contextLines', 'maxResults', or 'includeHidden', leaving the agent to infer their meanings from names alone, which may be 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching for a pattern (literal or regex) across files. However, 'inside the configured scope' is vague and does not differentiate well from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'read_file', which also involve file access.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'read_file' or 'list_directory'. The description lacks any context about preferred scenarios or exclusions.

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