project_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that ripgrep is used with a grep fallback and that output is in file:line:match format, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only (though 'search' implies it), nor does it mention performance implications, .gitignore handling, or exit behavior on no matches.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the action and result format. Excellent conciseness and structure for the information provided, though it trades completeness 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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, yet the description covers only the core action and result format. It omits critical details about parameter semantics, scope, and edge cases, making it insufficient for an agent to call the tool reliably.

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 explain parameters. It does not mention pattern, max, glob, or path at all, leaving agents without any understanding of how these affect the search. The only implicit hint is the word 'pattern' in the schema, but the description provides no added meaning.

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 tool searches a project using ripgrep (or grep fallback) and returns matches in file:line:match format. It distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_search and read_file by indicating project-wide search, but it doesn't explicitly name an alternative nor detail scope (e.g., recursive, respects .gitignore).

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 simply states what it does without mentioning scenarios such as 'use for regex search across project files' or contrasting with memory_search or read_file. An agent is left to infer usage from the name and context.

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