Search local files

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful context: uses ripgrep, is fast, and searches either names or content. It does not describe the output format (e.g., returns file paths), which would be helpful given no output schema.

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?

Both sentences are concise and front-loaded. The first sentence delivers the core action and tool, and the second adds valuable context without waste. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description lacks details on the output format, parameter semantics, and usage examples. It is too sparse to fully equip an agent for correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only implicitly covers the 'mode' parameter by mentioning file names vs. text contents. It fails to explain other critical parameters like glob, root, regex, maxResults, caseSensitive, or includeHidden, leaving the agent without guidance on their meaning.

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?

Clearly states the tool performs fast local file search using ripgrep, with two modes (names or content). Differentiates from sibling file tools like read_file or list_directory by emphasizing search before reading, making its purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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?

Advises using this tool 'before reading large directory trees,' which is an explicit usage hint. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_directory or exec for more complex searches, nor does it state when not to use it.

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