Remote Search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds that matching is literal and results are bounded, but it does not say whether the operation is read-only, what the default bound is, whether pagination exists, or what permissions are needed.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly more precise about what 'bounded' means, but it is compact and easy to scan.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits return format, pagination behavior, path semantics, and safety profile, leaving important operational details unspecified.

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, and it partially does. 'Literal text' maps to pattern, 'remote project' maps to project_id, and 'bounded results' maps to max_matches, but relative_path is never mentioned and matching semantics such as case sensitivity remain unspecified.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Search for literal text inside the remote project.' It distinguishes searching from reading a whole file or listing paths, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings such as remote_read or remote_list.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus remote_read, remote_list, or remote_stat. The phrase 'literal text' and 'bounded results' hints at scope, but no alternatives or exclusion conditions are given.

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