Search Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'targeted verification' nuance, implying a read-only investigative use case, but it does not disclose return format, performance characteristics, or any other behavioral details. With annotations covering safety, the added context is modest.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a direct usage preference. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and scannable for an agent.

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 search tool with 7 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers usage context. It explains the scenario (verification) and an efficiency guideline. While it doesn't describe what the tool searches (files) explicitly, the title and schema imply it, and the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 all parameters (query, glob, path, regex, max_results, workspace_id, include_hidden) are already documented. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the full parameter documentation.

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 states a clear purpose—'targeted verification or code lookup'—which indicates the tool searches for information. The title 'Search Files' reinforces the resource. However, it does not explicitly say 'searches files for text or regex,' leaving some implicit. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on targeted searches.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('targeted verification or code lookup') and provides a strong preference ('Prefer one specific final search instead of repeated broad verification searches'). It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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