Search Repository Catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context: the dependency on a populated local catalog and the suggestion to run repo_index if empty. It also discloses that omitting query changes behavior to listing. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, the secondary mode is explained, and the prerequisite is stated. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 0 required, and no output schema, the description covers the essential use cases: search, list, and the dependency on indexing. It also hints at return behavior ('no matches' vs. catalog listing). Given the annotations provide safety, nothing critical is missing for an agent to call 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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds little new parameter-specific meaning—it restates the query omission behavior already in the schema and adds the catalog dependency at the tool level, not per-parameter. 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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('indexed local repositories'), and enumerates the search dimensions (path, domain, kind, route, imports, exports, symbols). It also clarifies the dual mode (search vs. catalog listing) and references the legacy repo_catalog tool, making it easy to distinguish from siblings.

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 explains when to use the tool ('Omit query to list the catalog'), and when not to ('if the catalog is empty this returns no matches'), and directs the agent to call repo_index first. This is clear guidance with an explicit alternative.

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