Grep

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the core behavior: it searches a file for a pattern and returns matches. However, it does not mention whether the pattern is a regex or literal string, or what happens on no match or a missing file, leaving behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted content beyond the filler phrase 'This function will'. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool, the core input and output are stated. But with no output schema and no annotations, the lack of pattern-type semantics and no-match/error behavior makes it only minimally complete for correct invocation.

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 needed to compensate. It only restates the parameter roles as 'given pattern' and 'specified file' without adding semantics like regex syntax, flags, or path handling. The description adds little beyond the parameter names already visible 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('search') with a clear resource ('specified file') and states the output ('return the matching lines'). It is clearly distinct from read_file (whole-file read) and glob (file discovery), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over siblings such as read_file, glob, or bash. The usage context is only implied by the description, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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