search_in_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'search' without revealing any behavioral traits like return format, performance, or side effects, nor confirming it is read-only.

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 with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the essential verb and resource, making it easy to parse, though it could include a bit more context without becoming wasteful.

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?

The schema robustly documents parameters, but there is no output schema or annotations. The description does not clarify the scope of 'project files' or the nature of results, and sibling tools like search_in_scripts and search_scene_content introduce ambiguity about what 'project files' excludes.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of all three parameters with descriptive comments (e.g., 'case-insensitive', 'File pattern filter', 'Max results'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'search' and clearly identifies the resource as 'project files', making the core purpose clear. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like search_in_scripts and search_scene_content by implying a broader scope, though it doesn't explicitly name them or contrast them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_in_scripts or search_scene_content. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be preferred or any exclusions.

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