infosys_search_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the search is restricted to <pre> blocks and that results are matching lines with context and page URL — useful, but the return format is also carried by the existing output schema, so the added value is modest.

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?

Three tight sentences with the scope front-loaded and no filler; the compact 'language: st | xml | cpp | csharp' line is efficient. Slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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 a read-only tool with an output schema, the essentials (scope, language values, return shape) are present. What remains thin is routing against the many sibling infosys_* search tools and any guidance on the limit parameter, which an agent would still have to guess.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does document the language parameter's accepted values (st | xml | cpp | csharp), which the schema leaves as an untyped string with no enum — valuable. But query and limit get no elaboration beyond what is obvious from their names.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and a precisely scoped resource: the code examples (<pre> blocks) of indexed pages. This scope (code blocks only, not prose) meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings like infosys_search and infosys_search_symbols, though it never names those alternatives directly.

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?

It gives concrete target examples — a call pattern, an attribute, a constant — which implies what to use the tool for. However, it never states when to prefer this over infosys_search or infosys_search_symbols, nor any exclusions, so routing is left to inference.

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