research

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it aggregates multiple sources into a bounded report, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is read-only, potential cost/latency, or what 'bounded' precisely means, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core action and output; the second provides usage context. Every word 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what is aggregated and when to use it. The output is described as a 'bounded report', which is sufficient at a high level, though 'bounded' is somewhat ambiguous and could benefit from clarification on size or scope.

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 the single parameter 'query' with a clear description, so baseline is 3. The tool description reinforces that the query is for broad subsystem understanding, but adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema already provides.

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's function: it aggregates ranked code retrieval, related files, subsystem summaries, and relevant hubs into a bounded report. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning it for broad subsystem understanding after exact lookup or related-item search fails, which is a specific and differentiated purpose.

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 says to use this when exact lookup or related-item search is no longer enough, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't name specific sibling tools, but it gives a strong contextual signal that this is for broader understanding, which effectively guides tool selection.

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