search.content

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool performs substring search and returns hits with context and per-line hashes. It also hints at compatibility with str_replace. However, it does not mention if the operation is read-only, any side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. Basic transparency but lacking depth.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and key details about output and downstream use. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and output shape but omits details like the scope of search (vault/directory), the meaning of contextLines, and behavior with large results. It is adequate for a simple search tool but lacks completeness for complex usage.

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 only 14% (only _budget has a description). The description compensates by explaining the purpose of the tool (substring search with context) and the output format (hits with surrounding context), which indirectly clarifies parameters like query, contextLines, etc. However, it does not explain the role of vault, directory, limit, or offset beyond their self-explanatory names.

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?

Description clearly states 'substring search across markdown files' with a specific verb (search) and resource (markdown files). It also describes the output format (hits with context and per-line hashes) and hints at a downstream use (str_replace). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like block.find (which searches for blocks) and file.find (which finds files by name).

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?

The description implies usage for substring search with rewriting capability ('surgically rewritten with str_replace'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like block.find for structural searches or file.list for file enumeration. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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