search_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds that the search is limited to UTF-8 files and supports literal or regex patterns, but omits crucial details such as return format, recursion depth, case sensitivity, or handling of multiple matches. The description is too sparse to set accurate expectations.

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, concise sentence with the verb first and no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not mention what the search returns (e.g., file paths with line numbers), how to limit scope, or any constraints like maximum results. A more complete description would include at least a summary of return values and usage hints.

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 only 17% (only projectPath has a description). The description adds some meaning by indicating that the 'pattern' can be literal or regex, which maps to the 'regex' parameter, but it does not explain 'path', 'extensions', or 'maxResults'. Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 the tool's function: searching UTF-8 project files for a literal or regular expression pattern. The verb 'search' is specific, the resource 'UTF-8 project files' is defined, and the pattern types are mentioned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_file or list_files.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to find a pattern across project files. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., read_file for a known file) or exclusions. The description does not state scenarios where this tool is inappropriate.

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