Search text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the UTF-8 encoding constraint and regex capability; it says nothing about result truncation, preview byte limits, or ordering behavior that would be useful context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the core verb and scope lead. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than tight, which is more a completeness issue than a structure flaw.

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?

With 10 parameters, 0% description coverage, and no annotation gaps on safety, the description should explain the filtering and output-shaping knobs, but it does not. An output schema exists so return shape needn't be described, yet the input contract remains largely opaque.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: it only loosely gestures at 'text or regex' (query/regex). Globs, path default, max_results, context_lines, and preview byte limits are undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (UTF-8 workspace files) plus the match modes (text or regex), so an agent immediately knows the operation. No sibling tool overlaps this capability, so explicit differentiation isn't needed, but the description doesn't note scope limits relative to read_file/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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., read_file for a single file, list_files for names), and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose.

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