search_in_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching for a pattern but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's case-sensitive, supports regex, returns file paths or content snippets, handles errors, or has performance implications like timeouts with large projects. For a search tool with 4 parameters, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's core function without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Search'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to understanding the purpose, achieving optimal conciseness.

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's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the Android project context implied by sibling tools, parameter details, or behavioral traits. While the output schema may cover return values, the description fails to provide enough context for safe and effective use, especially as a mutation-adjacent tool in a development environment.

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 by explaining parameters. It only vaguely references 'files specified extensions' without detailing what 'file_extensions' means (e.g., default values like .smali/.xml, format requirements) or other parameters like 'project_dir' (e.g., path to a decoded APK directory) and 'search_pattern' (e.g., text or regex). This adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('files specified extensions'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_smali_files' or 'get_smali_file' by focusing on pattern-based content searching rather than listing or retrieving specific files. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what types of files (e.g., code files in an Android project) or the context, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify whether this is for text-based searches in project files, how it compares to 'list_resources' for finding files, or any prerequisites like needing a decoded APK. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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