search_multi_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the single-pass efficiency model, the grouped return shape with line numbers and snippets, and the always-ignored build directories. It stops short of stating read-only semantics explicitly or covering error/limit behavior, but the core operational traits are visible.

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 action and scope, followed by return behavior and the directory-ignore rule. There is no filler, and each sentence adds distinct information.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description usefully explains the return format and ignored directories. However, it leaves significant gaps around path scoping, max_matches behavior, supported profile values, and whether patterns are regex or literal, so an agent still lacks some information needed to invoke it optimally.

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 all four parameters. It clarifies that 'patterns' is a list and that 'profile' is a named security profile with an example, but it never mentions 'path' or 'max_matches', leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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: run a single ripgrep pass over a Java/Spring project for patterns or a named security profile. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like analyze_vulnerability_usage, leaving some ambiguity about when raw pattern search is preferable to vulnerability analysis.

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 by naming inputs ('a list of patterns or a named security profile'), but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to the available sibling tools. The agent must infer the selection context.

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