files_search_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies read-only intent and discloses the return shape (matching paths with line numbers), but says nothing about case sensitivity, binary/large file handling, .gitignore or hidden-file behavior, or whether results are truncated by max_results. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a substantial gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then capability, then return shape. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 did not need describing, and the description is adequate for a simple read-only search. However, with 5 undocumented parameters at 0% coverage and no annotations, the definition leaves path scoping, glob filtering, and result limits unexplained.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies that queries may be literal or regex (the regex flag) and vaguely implies sandbox-wide scoping; path, glob_pattern, and max_results semantics are left entirely to bare parameter names with defaults.

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?

"Grep-like text search across sandbox files" names a specific verb (search), the resource (files), and the search modality (grep-like, content-based), and the second sentence adds that it can be literal or regex. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like files_list_files, though it never names that alternative explicitly to sharpen the contrast.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never references the obvious sibling alternatives (files_list_files for enumeration, files_read_file for reading a known file). Usage must be inferred from the word "grep-like", and there is no mention of prerequisites, scope limits, or large-tree behavior.

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