search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'exact' is a deterministic fast lookup and 'related' operates over 'prepared full-engine artifacts', offering some insight into behavior. However, it does not describe potential side effects, prerequisites like index readiness, or failure modes.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core routing concept, and contains no unnecessary verbiage. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's function and usage.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what results look like, whether an index must be built first, or how retrieval_mode relates to the 'related' intent. This leaves important gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of extra meaning for the 'intent' parameter by elaborating on exact versus related behavior, but other parameters are already well-documented in the schema and need no further clarification.

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 identifies this as a repository search tool and explains the two intent modes: exact for deterministic symbol/file lookup and related for ranked pattern discovery. It is specific about the resource and behavior, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'symbol' or 'research'.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use each intent: use 'exact' when you know the exact symbol or file target, and 'related' for ranked related-item discovery. This is clear context for choosing the right mode, though it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternative sibling tools.

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