Search the Radius source repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that a shallow clone is made if no local checkout exists, and that first use may be slow. This sets appropriate expectations for the agent.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and adds essential context (clone behavior, use case) without redundancy or wasted words.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the scope, setup behavior, and intended use cases. It could mention pagination or result format, but overall is sufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, meaning each parameter is already documented. The description does not add new semantic details for parameters beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a clear verb 'search' and resource 'Radius source repo', listing specific directories covered. It distinguishes from sibling tools (radius_source_read, radius_source_sync, radius_docs_sync) by focusing on full-text search over source code and docs.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'for implementation details, resource-provider internals, or design rationale that isn't covered in the published docs.' It also mentions the initial clone delay, but does not explicitly state when not to use or offer alternatives.

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