search_code

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

No annotations provided; description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or result format. It only states basic search functionality.

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?

Single sentence, efficient and front-loaded with the main action. Minor improvement could be structuring with bullet points for filters, but still concise.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description omits context like search scope, result limits, ordering, or error handling. A search tool should provide more contextual clues for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds basic meaning: query is the search term, owner and language are optional filters. However, it lacks details on parameter constraints, allowed values, or behavior (e.g., case sensitivity, wildcards).

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches code across repositories and mentions optional filters by owner or language. It differentiates from siblings like get_file or list_repos, but lacks specifics on search semantics (e.g., exact match vs. regex).

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. The description implies usage for code search but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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