search

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

Even without annotations, the description fully discloses read-only nature, no side effects, no auth, no rate limits, and explains FTS tokenization limitations. It also mentions return structure with match_excerpt, title_highlight, and aggregate total_est_tokens.

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 moderately concise and well-structured, starting with a clear summary bullet point, then details. A few extra clauses could be trimmed, but overall effective.

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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return format (ranked matches, fields, aggregate), filtering options, and usage constraints. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 descriptions are detailed (100% coverage), but the description adds meaningful context like the tokenization behavior affecting query handling and the specific meaning of project_id null vs omitted. This goes beyond schema 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 clearly states it performs full-text keyword search across files using SQLite FTS5, and distinguishes from siblings like regex_search and bundle_search. The verb 'search' and resource 'files' are specific.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: mentions that FTS misses URLs, hyphenated terms, and partial substrings, recommending fallback to regex_search, and for bundled bodies use bundle_search. Also explains project_id behavior.

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