search_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and gives no information about read-only nature, return format, limitations, or edge cases. This is a significant gap for a search operation that an agent must invoke correctly.

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 short sentence without unnecessary words, but it is under-specified. While concise, it lacks sufficient detail to be appropriately informative, so it does not earn a higher score on the conciseness dimension.

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 is simple and the output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description does not convey when to use this over search_code, and the minimal wording leaves the agent to infer key context. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 fully explains the three parameters (query, file_path, limit). The description adds no new parameter information, which aligns with the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Search within a specific file' clearly identifies the action (search) and the resource scope (a specific file), distinguishing it from sibling search_code which likely searches across a codebase. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, 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?

The phrase 'within a specific file' implies a use case (searching a single file), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_code, nor any exclusions or alternative references. This is implied usage rather than clear contextual guidance.

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