Search File Contents

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

Annotations supply only a title, so the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds little beyond the title: no scope defaults, regex semantics, read-only guarantee, or behavior around file_types/project_path. 'Search' implies non-mutating behavior but it is not explicit.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple search tool, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing broader context captured in other dimensions.

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 presence of an output schema and fully documented parameters fills some gaps, but the description does not address how this tool relates to the many sibling find/search tools or what the default search scope is. An agent could invoke it reasonably but may pick the wrong sibling without further context.

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%, and all three parameters already have descriptions: regex pattern, file_types, and optional project_path. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema-carrying baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'content in Godot files', making the core operation clear. It is not explicitly differentiated from sibling godot_find_by_pattern, but 'content' helps narrow it versus file listing or file info tools.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_find_by_pattern, godot_find_unused_files, or godot_get_project_files. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are mentioned.

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