Search the built code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (matches with line numbers and context), the scope (project's own files), and a key behavioral trait (doesn't download anything). It doesn't mention limits or performance, but for a read-only grep-like operation, this is reasonably transparent. No contradictions with annotations exist since none are provided.

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 pack in the core purpose, return details, and a usage workflow. Every clause earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff. The structure is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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?

For a simple search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it searches, what it returns, and how to follow up. It doesn't mention defaults for maxMatches or contextLines, but those are schema-documented. The overall context is sufficient for an agent to decide and 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 50%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'pattern' by giving examples ('markup or token') and implies 'contextLines' via 'context'. However, it doesn't clarify flags, maxMatches, projectId, or prefix beyond what the schema already provides. It adds some value but not comprehensive parameter guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Grep') and resource ('the project's own files') and clearly states the function: regex search with line numbers and context. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing that it works on the built code without downloading anything, positioning it as a local inspection tool, and even suggests a follow-up with read_file.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: to find what Claude Design actually built without downloading, by locating markup or tokens and then reading the region with read_file. It provides a clear workflow and an implicit exclusion (don't download), though it doesn't name alternative tools directly, the direction is unambiguous.

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