Local Project Sync

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions support for regular expressions, which is a useful trait, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, pagination, or whether it's read-only. For a search tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap 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, efficient sentence in Chinese: '在项目代码中搜索指定内容，支持正则表达式'. It is front-loaded with the core function and includes a key feature (regex support) without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations or output schema, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves and what it returns.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning support for regular expressions (implied by the useRegex parameter) but not providing additional context like search scope or result formatting. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: '在项目代码中搜索指定内容，支持正则表达式' (search for specified content in project code, supports regular expressions). It specifies the verb '搜索' (search) and resource '项目代码' (project code), distinguishing it from siblings like list_project_files or read_file_content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools beyond the basic function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer search_code_content over siblings like analyze_project_structure or read_file_content for finding specific content, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the function but not explicitly stated.

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