search_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the search functionality and operators but does not mention any limitations, performance characteristics, or the read-only nature of the operation. This leaves some gaps in transparency.

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 a single dense paragraph that includes both the purpose and a long list of operators. It is front-loaded with the main purpose but could be better structured with bullet points or sections for readability.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and parameters adequately. However, it lacks information about the output format or structure, which is important since there is no output schema. For a search tool, this is a notable omission.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the query operator syntax and providing examples, as well as detailing the filters object and searchMode options. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 that it searches indexed functions and React components with natural language queries. It provides extensive operator examples, making the tool's purpose highly specific and distinguishable from sibling tools, which are audit-related.

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 provides clear usage examples and operator syntax, guiding when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, though sibling tools are unrelated so differentiation is implicit.

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