search

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'always filtered and gated,' which is vague and doesn't explain safety (e.g., read-only nature), what filtering entails, or what gating means. This is insufficient for a search tool that might access sensitive files.

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 sentence that packs the core purpose, a usage guideline, and behavioral hints without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

This tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, but the description does not explain return values, parameter semantics, or access constraints. It gives only a high-level hint about filtering and gating, leaving significant gaps for a complex search tool.

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% and the description adds minimal parameter meaning. It mentions 'keyword or regex' which hints at the 'pattern' and 'regex' parameters, but the other 7 parameters (scope, exclude, max_hits, force, etc.) are completely unexplained.

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 clearly states this is a keyword or regex search tool, and labels it a sanctioned replacement for grep. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like locate (file location) and read (file contents), though it doesn't explicitly state what is searched (file content is implied by grep).

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 phrase 'sanctioned replacement for grep' provides an explicit usage context and implicitly tells the agent to use this instead of grep. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools (locate, read, explore) or state when not to use this tool.

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