Search the project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real behavior beyond them: case-insensitive matching, results grouped by file and ordered by citation count, secret-file skipping (.env, *.key), and root confinement. The only weak spot is '(concise: 5 files)', which is ambiguous against the schema's limit-as-lines semantics.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then matching/ordering behavior, then routing to read. Every sentence carries information, though the telegraphic '(concise: 5 files)' fragment is cryptic rather than concise.

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 no output schema, the description usefully sketches return shape (grouped lines, ranked by citations) and scope limits, and annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around how limit/context interact with the concise format, but nothing critical for 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 all six parameters are documented structurally, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only marginal meaning (case-insensitivity for text, concise-mode behavior for format) and never mentions regex or where, so it does not exceed the 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 and resource ('where a text is defined or used') plus the result shape ('lines grouped by file, most cited first'), which an agent can distinguish from read and run without opening a schema. The scope ('inside the root') and matching mode ('case-insensitive') sharpen it further.

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 routes the agent: 'Use it instead of grep' and 'To see the code use read.' It names the alternative sibling and the condition that selects it, leaving little to inference.

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