search_artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the default search scope (which file types the default covers) and the substring-vs-regex default mode. It stops short of describing return format or result ordering.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism. Every clause earns its place: purpose, matching mode default, and default scope. No filler.

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 dense search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, default scope, and matching mode but says nothing about the shape of results or how maxResults/pagination behaves in practice. It is minimally complete but leaves the agent guessing what a result looks like.

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 67%, and the description meaningfully supplements it: it defines the default matching mode for 'query', names 'glob' as the narrowing mechanism, and notes regex activation. This is more than mere restatement, though ignoreCase/maxResults/repo semantics remain only in the schema.

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 (Search), the exact resource (artifact file CONTENT), and the mechanism (grep). The word 'CONTENT' and '(grep)' cleanly distinguish it from siblings like read_artifact, list_artifacts, and list_repos, which operate on file presence/listing rather than content.

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?

It explains the default behavior ('Defaults to webApps/services/settings .js/... files') and how to narrow results ('narrow with glob'), which implies when it's useful. However, it never states when to reach for this over read_artifact or list_artifacts, nor any exclusions, so usage is inferred rather than guided.

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