grep_find

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'find'. It is silent on match behavior (case sensitivity, whether it returns all matches or first), the return shape, and what scope/story/selection actually change. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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?

With 5 parameters, 20% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot know match semantics, return behavior, or parameter effects from this description.

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 20% across 5 parameters. The description only loosely gestures at the document target ('active document') and explains none of scope (document/story/selection), includeFootnotes, or includeMasterPages, so it fails to compensate for the sparse schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Find text using GREP pattern') and a scope ('active document'), which an agent can distinguish from text_search and text_findReplace. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from the closely related grep_findFormat, grep_replace, or text_search, so the boundary is left to inference.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives. In a sibling set containing grep_findFormat, grep_replace, grep_replaceFormat, text_search, and text_findReplace, the agent gets no signal about when GREP-find is preferred over plain text search or format-find.

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