search_regex

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It makes the search behavior and scope clear and implicitly identifies the operation as non-mutating, but it does not disclose output shape, match limits, or behavior on invalid patterns. This is acceptable but incomplete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action and resource, then adds a compact parenthetical with high-value selection guidance. There is no wasted wording.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and clarify the k parameter's role. Neither is provided, leaving an agent uncertain about result format and how to configure search depth. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that is otherwise simple.

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 only 50%: pattern is described, but k has no semantic description beyond numeric bounds. The tool description reinforces pattern's purpose but says nothing about k, so an agent must guess whether k means top-k results, page size, or something else.

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 names the operation as regex search over journal chunks and adds an explicit escape-hatch purpose: symbols, paths, and exact identifiers. This distinguishes it from the likely keyword-based search_journal sibling without opening any schema.

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 'escape hatch' phrasing plus the concrete use cases tell an agent when to reach for this tool rather than a normal search. It does not explicitly name search_journal as the default alternative or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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