sassy_search_files

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 reveals that search_type can be 'files' or 'content', and that context_lines controls context around matches, but it does not mention recursion behavior, output format, case sensitivity default, or whether hidden files are included. Significant behavioral traits are left undisclosed.

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 very brief and front-loaded with its purpose, followed by a compact parameter list. However, its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with seven parameters, and the structure omits key details that would help the agent. It is not wastefully verbose, but it sacrifices necessary information for 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (7 params) and the existence of an output schema, the description does not adequately explain return values, search scope (e.g., recursive), or how to combine parameters effectively. It misses the required path/pattern context and any notes on result limits, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description must compensate for all parameter meanings. It only explains three of the seven parameters (search_type, file_pattern, context_lines) and omits the required 'path' and 'pattern' parameters, as well as 'ignore_case' and 'max_results'. The partial coverage leaves crucial syntax and semantics undefined.

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 'Search for files by name or content', which uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this search tool from sibling listing/reading tools like sassy_list_dir and sassy_read_file. The addition of the two search modes (files/content) further clarifies its purpose.

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 implies usage from the main statement and enumerates relevant parameters (search_type, file_pattern, context_lines), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like sassy_list_dir, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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