tldr_semantic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It only states the basic purpose (semantic search) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, handles large codebases, respects .gitignore, or has any limitations. Minimal insight into behavior beyond the core function.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's function and provides actionable guidance.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description could do more to inform about return values, result format, or performance implications. While the core purpose is clear, a search tool typically benefits from specifying how results are presented or ordered. The description is minimally complete.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds value by exemplifying valid queries (e.g., 'authentication logic'), clarifying that the query is meant for natural language phrases. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's basic description.

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 the tool performs semantic code search using natural language and provides concrete examples like 'authentication logic' and 'payment handling'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., tldr_search) by emphasizing 'semantic' and natural language, implying it is for conceptual rather than exact matches.

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 recommends using the tool for conceptual searches, giving examples of when it is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the contrast with siblings is clear enough to guide appropriate usage.

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