capture_search_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that scanning enumerates every entry and extracts printable strings, but says nothing about case sensitivity, matching semantics, whether scanning is capped per entry, or failure modes (corrupt/non-ZIP files). The limit and max_entry_bytes defaults imply scan bounds that are never disclosed.

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 short sentence with zero padding and a front-loaded verb, which is structurally sound. It is under-specified rather than concise, so it earns only a middling score.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a four-parameter tool with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and no usage routing, the definition is materially incomplete. An agent could not confidently invoke it correctly.

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 four parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. file_path and query are loosely inferable from 'inside each APMX ZIP entry', but limit and max_entry_bytes are completely unexplained, leaving two of four parameters opaque.

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 (printable strings inside APMX ZIP entries), which is meaningfully more granular than the bare name. It implicitly distinguishes itself from capture_strings and capture_search_directory by scoping the search to ZIP entries, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Given the crowded sibling set (capture_strings, capture_search_directory, capture_find_bytes, capture_read_entry), an agent has no basis for choosing this tool over a near-identical one.

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