Buscar en el proyecto

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Solo lectura'. Beyond annotations it adds real behavioral context: case-insensitive matching, grouping/ordering by most-cited files, and secret exclusion (.env, *.key). It does not cover pagination or result-size limits, but the safety and scoping profile is well conveyed.

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 dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then the grep comparison, the sibling routing, and the security constraint. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 6-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers behavior, scoping, security exclusions, and alternatives. Minor gaps remain around result limits or pagination, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters (baseline 3). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'conciso' returns 5 files and that matching is case-insensitive, which enriches the formato and texto parameters.

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: it finds where a text is defined or used and returns lines grouped by file. It separates itself from siblings by directing the agent to 'leer' for viewing code. An agent can distinguish it from 'leer' and 'correr' without opening a 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?

Explicitly says 'Úsala en vez de grep' (use instead of grep) and names the alternative 'Para ver el código usa leer'. Both the when-to-use condition and the routing to a sibling tool are stated directly.

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