code_nav.exact_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, correctly indicating a read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context: results are ranked and non-exhaustive, which goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 very brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it sacrifices clarity for brevity, leaving out necessary parameter details. It earns its place but could be expanded without becoming verbose.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, pagination, how parameters control behavior, or how results are presented. The minimal description leaves significant gaps.

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?

No parameter descriptions in the schema (0% coverage) and the description omits any explanation of the six parameters. The agent cannot infer the meaning of 'patterns', 'scope', 'limit', etc. The description fails to add value beyond the schema.

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 it is a 'ranked candidate exact text search', specifying the verb (search) and resource (exact text) and distinguishing it from siblings like 'search' (likely not exact) and 'exact_audit'. The 'not exhaustive proof' caveat adds nuance. Could be more descriptive but effective.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search' or 'structural_search'. The phrase 'not exhaustive proof' hints at limitations but does not provide explicit when/when-not criteria or sibling differentiation.

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