find_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the search behavior and the cap on results, indicating it returns matching lines. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but 'search' strongly implies this. No contradictions exist.

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 starts with a one-sentence summary and then lists parameters in a clear, compact format. Every line is informative, with no unnecessary detail 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?

Given the output schema exists, return values do not need explanation. The description covers essential behavior and parameters adequately, though it lacks usage guidance relative to sibling tools, which slightly reduces completeness for agent decision-making.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for any parameter, so the description is essential. It clearly explains each parameter, including the practical meaning of 'max_results' as a cap on returned lines, adding significant value beyond the raw 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 clearly states it searches file contents for a literal text string, using 'grep-like' to set expectations. It is specific about the action and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'search_files' beyond implying a focus on file contents.

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 the sibling 'search_files'. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations. The 'grep-like' hint is implied but not explicitly actionable.

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