search_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it's thin. It mentions 'allowed' files/folders (implying access restrictions) and UTF-8 encoding, but doesn't disclose what the tool returns (matches with line numbers? just boolean?), case-sensitivity default behavior, behavior when no match is found, or whether multiple matches are returned. For a search operation, return format is a significant unknown.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately brief, though it could add a bit more behavioral detail without becoming verbose. Still, conciseness is well achieved given the length.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, so the description must carry substantial weight, but it's underspecified. For a search tool with three parameters and unknown return format, the description should clarify what output the agent can expect (matches, line positions, counts) and default behaviors. It's minimally viable but leaves key questions unanswered.

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 compensate for the three parameters (path, query, caseSensitive), but it provides no parameter-level detail. It doesn't explain whether 'path' defaults to anything, what 'query' format is expected, or how 'caseSensitive' affects matching. The description adds almost no meaning beyond the raw schema property names.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') plus resource ('UTF-8 text files') and scope ('inside an allowed file or folder'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like read_file (reads whole content) and replace_text (modifies), since search implies matching without returning full content. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative but the purpose is clear and distinct among the listed tools.

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 context: searching text files for a string, which naturally distinguishes from read_file (whole content) and replace_text (modification). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools. The phrase 'inside an allowed file or folder' hints at permission boundaries but gives no concrete guidance on choosing between this and other search-like operations.

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