search_context_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It discloses that the tool returns snippets and file paths ('find which files are relevant' and 'do not rely on this tool's snippets alone'), implying a read-only search operation. It does not explicitly state it has no side effects, but the nature of a search tool makes that clear. This is sufficient transparency, though not perfect.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. It directly states the purpose, usage, and a caution without any unnecessary words or repetition. The structure is clean and easy to parse.

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 provides essential context for the tool's role in a workflow (search first, then load files) and warns against over-reliance on snippets. It does not detail the output schema, but the information about snippets and relevant files is enough for the agent to understand what to expect. Given the tool's simplicity, this is nearly 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 schema descriptions cover `query` and `project_path`, but `n_results` lacks a description (only a default of 5). The tool description does not elaborate on `n_results`, leaving its meaning to inference from the tool's purpose. Since schema coverage is 67% and the description adds no additional clarity, the parameter semantics are adequate but not enhanced.

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 (semantically search the whole indexed project context) and differentiates it from the sibling tool `load_context_files` by instructing to use this first and then pass file paths to the sibling. The verb 'search' and resource 'context index' are specific, making it distinguishable.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this first to find which files are relevant to your task, then pass their paths to `load_context_files`' and 'do not rely on this tool's snippets alone.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus the alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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