search_project_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool searches files but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it searches content or metadata, performance characteristics, pagination (implied by maxResults but not explained), authentication needs, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a search operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Search workspace files') and adds key details ('by text query with optional extension filtering'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and hints at parameters, but lacks behavioral details and usage context. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description doesn't fully compensate for missing annotations and low schema coverage.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning 'text query' (mapping to 'query') and 'optional extension filtering' (mapping to 'extensions'), but doesn't explain 'maxResults' or provide details like query syntax or extension format. It partially compensates but not fully.

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 action ('search') and resource ('workspace files'), with specific filtering capabilities ('by text query with optional extension filtering'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_project_file' or 'search_mdn', which reduces it from a perfect score.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'optional extension filtering' but doesn't specify when this is useful or compare it to other search or file-access tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.

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