search_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'ripgrep-like' which implies behavior (fast, regex, respects gitignore), but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, how binary files are handled, or what the output format is. This is some context, but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose without any redundant words or filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 a clear purpose, a fully documented schema, and an output schema exists. The description covers the core functionality sufficiently for basic usage. It lacks explicit guidance on edge cases or alternatives, but for the tool's simplicity, the combination of description and schema is reasonably complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the 'ripgrep-like' analogy which hints at regex semantics for the pattern parameter, but it does not provide additional detail beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and clearly states the resource ('text pattern across files in the project'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like glob_files (which finds files by name) and list_directory. The 'ripgrep-like' reference further clarifies the nature of the search.

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 via 'across files in the project' and 'ripgrep-like', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions (e.g., 'for file name matching, use glob_files'). No alternative tools are named.

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