search_project_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it is cache-only and makes no API calls, which implies read-only behavior. It also states the prerequisite 'Run sync_project first.' It does not disclose error handling or what happens on empty results, but covers the essential behavioral traits for a search tool.

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 four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence contributes: what it does, what it returns, cache behavior, and prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.

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 or annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, modes, return value, cache-only nature, and prerequisite. It falls slightly short of a 5 by not mentioning result limits or error/empty-response behavior, but these are not critical for this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: 'keyword, prefix, or regex' essentially restates the mode enum, and the downstream use with get_project_yaml is contextual rather than parameter-specific. It does not enrich parameter meanings materially.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search cached project file keys by keyword, prefix, or regex.' This clearly identifies the operation and differentiates it from sibling tools like list_project_files (which lists all keys) and get_project_yaml (which fetches content). The mention of search modes further clarifies scope.

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 provides clear contextual guidance: it is cache-only, requires 'Run sync_project first,' and returns keys for use with get_project_yaml. This implies when to use it and the prerequisite, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare against alternatives like list_project_files, stopping short of a 5.

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