sassy_search_files

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals concrete behaviors: recursive traversal, regex semantics for both search types, file-size skipping (>5MB) for content search, output format (path:line: text with 200 chars), and clamping of max_results to 1-500. This is far richer than what annotations alone convey.

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 dense but every clause carries essential information. It front-loads the read-only safety cueadian, then explains modes, defaults, limits, and alternatives in four sentences with zero fluff or repetition.

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 7-parameter tool with a bare schemaaine, the description gives exactly what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: defaults, clamping behavior, output format, and sibling routing. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, every parameter is explained in the description: path, pattern, search_type (with exact value meanings), file_pattern (with example), ignore_case (default True), max_results (default and clamp), and context_lines (optional before/after context). The description fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Searches recursively under path' and explicitly distinguishes between the two search modes. It names sibling tools (sassy_read_file, sassy_list_dir) to prevent confusion, making the tool's niche immediately obvious.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('to locate files by name or find text across a tree') and points to alternatives ('use sassy_read_file to read a specific hit and sassy_list_dir to browse instead'). This fully replaces any guesswork about tool selection.

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