search_project_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only that searching is confined to "the allowed project root." It says nothing about case sensitivity, regex vs literal matching, traversal depth, or result cap behavior, and does not hint that it is a non-destructive read.

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 tight sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity reflects under-specification elsewhere rather than optimal density.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description omits parameter meaning and usage context. An agent would call this only by guessing how query, path, and max_results interact.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for path, query, and max_results, and it does not. Only broad implications appear ("text" for query, "project root" for path), leaving the default of "." and the meaning/limits of max_results unexplained.

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 ("Search for text") and resource ("files under the allowed project root"), which is enough to distinguish it from get_docs, run_project_check, and read_project_file. It is clear but never explicitly contrasts itself with the siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. An agent must infer on its own that this is for locating text across many files rather than reading a single file via read_project_file.

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