Search 4.2BSD source code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (grep-style) and the filtering option, but does not specify search semantics such as whether regex is supported, case sensitivity, or behavior when no matches are found. The read-only nature is implied by 'Search', but not explicitly stated, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and output format in the first sentence, and a concise optional-filter hint in the second. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff. It is an excellent model of brevity.

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?

For a simple search tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: scope, return format, and optional filtering. It could be more complete by noting edge cases like no-result behavior or search semantics, but given the simplicity, it is largely adequate. The absence of an output schema makes the explicit return format description important, and it is provided.

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 already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only providing concrete examples for path_filter. The query and max_results are not further elaborated, so the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool searches '4.2BSD kernel and userland C source' and specifies the output format as 'path:line: code'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_documents or search_manpages, which target different corpora. The verb 'Search' and resource are explicit.

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 a clear context of use ('Search the 4.2BSD kernel and userland C source') and provides a practical filtering tip with examples ('netinet' or 'libc/gen'). However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like find_symbol or search_all, nor does it state exclusions. This is a clear context with no exclusions, warranting a 4.

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