search_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches UTF-8 text files, which implies it may skip binary files, but it doesn't disclose details like case sensitivity, regex support, or behavior when no matches are found. The description is accurate but minimal.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward search tool, though it could add a bit more detail without becoming bloated.

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 tool has an output schema and only 3 parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more context about search behavior, glob usage, and result limits. It's adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'text files' and 'workspace' but doesn't explain the query parameter format, glob pattern semantics, or max_results behavior. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond what the schema already shows.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('UTF-8 text files within the workspace'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file or list_files. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to understand its purpose.

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 implies usage context by specifying it searches text files in the workspace, which suggests it's for content-based search rather than file listing or reading. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_files or read_file, nor does it mention any exclusions or limitations.

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