search.all_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation (likely safe for most contexts), how matches are returned (streaming vs batched), performance implications for large ranges, or what happens when regex is enabled vs disabled. The brief description leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Extremely concise at 5 words. But it is so concise that it sacrifices information density—a tradeoff that leaves many required details missing. Could be longer if combined with param descriptions.

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 6 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent would lack critical information on parameter formats (start/end types), limit behavior, and return format to successfully invoke this tool without external schema inspection.

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 description must compensate. It only mentions query and regex parameters ('regex optional'). Nothing about session_id, start, end (as int or string types), limit, or their semantics. For 6 parameters with 4 required, this is a major gap.

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 verb ('Find'), resource ('all text matches'), scope ('in range'), and optional feature ('regex optional'). It distinguishes from siblings like search.all_data (data matches) and binary.search_text (binary-specific), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 usage for text searching with positional range, but provides no guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like search.next_text (single match), search.data, or binary.strings. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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