grep

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation, but it says 'the project' while the schema's glob default is '*.tex', meaning the search is actually restricted to .tex files by default. This misleading scoping is not disclosed. The description also omits case-sensitivity or hidden-file behavior, though the output format is mentioned.

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 filler. Every word adds meaning: the operation, the target resource, and the result format.

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 existence of an output schema covers return values, so the description doesn't need to elaborate them. However, the tool is not fully complete for an agent: it lacks context about glob/project semantics and the effect of defaults. For a simple search tool, it's adequate but has clear gaps preventing a higher score.

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 add meaning for parameters. The term 'Regex-search' implies the 'pattern' parameter is a regular expression, but the 'glob' and 'project' parameters are never mentioned. The description fails to explain their purpose (file filter and project scope), leaving agents to guess from names alone.

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 'Regex-search the project, returning file:line: match' uses a specific verb ('Regex-search') and resource ('the project'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like outline, files, and read. It also states the return format, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are stated. However, the purpose is so transparent that an agent can infer it is the tool for regex-based search across a project. It doesn't say when not to use other tools, but the description implies its usage clearly.

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