search

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring a safe read, the description still adds real value by disclosing the ignore rules (.gitignore, .git, node_modules) and the path:line:text result format. It says nothing about match ordering, truncation, or what happens when limit is hit, which matters for a search that can return many rows.

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 compact sentences that front-load the core action and follow with the scoping rule; nothing is padded or redundant. It is efficient, though it spends none of its budget on the undocumented boolean parameters.

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 five-parameter search with no output schema, the description does well to specify the result format and the ignore behavior. It is still incomplete on regex mode semantics, ignore_case, and result-limit behavior, all of which an agent needs to call 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 coverage is 60%, with path, limit, and pattern documented in the schema itself; the description adds no extra constraint beyond restating the search domain. The two undescribed booleans, regex and ignore_case, are not explained in the description either, so the coverage gap is left unfilled.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("searches text files under a folder") and even pins the return shape (path:line:text), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the siblings list and read, which an agent must infer.

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?

Usage is only implied: you use it when you want to find text matches inside files. Nothing states when to prefer read for full file contents or list for enumerating a directory, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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