worker_grep

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It adds useful details: the search uses ripgrep and returns results in 'file:line:match' format, and it is confined to the worker's authorized tree. However, it omits behavioral aspects like whether the search is read-only, how many results are returned by default, or how errors are handled.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return format is included immediately after, making it easy to parse.

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 four-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It mentions the return format and scope but omits parameter documentation, usage guidance, and behavioral details that would help an agent invoke it 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 four undocumented parameters. It only indirectly hints at 'workdir' via 'authorized workdir parent tree' and does not mention 'pattern', 'max', or 'glob' at all. This leaves essential parameter semantics unexplained.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Search file contents (ripgrep)'. It also identifies the scope as the worker's authorized workdir parent tree, which helps distinguish it from generic search tools. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool or clarify why an agent should pick it over worker_glob or project_search.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The scope 'within worker's authorized workdir parent tree' gives some context, but the agent is left to infer whether this is preferable to read_file, worker_glob, or project_search.

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