search_code

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 only states the search scope and implies a read-only operation via 'search'. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, result format, pagination behavior, or any side effects, leaving significant behavioral context undisclosed.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words, and the primary action ('Search') is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it is so brief that it under-specifies usage and behavior—an issue more related to completeness than structure.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the one-line description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's return value, pagination semantics, or when to choose it over siblings. It conveys the basic search intent but omits practical details needed for confident invocation.

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%: q, page, and perPage each have descriptions, and the q parameter even points to GitLab code search syntax. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('code across GitLab repositories'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_repositories and search_issues by the noun 'code', but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use search_code versus the many sibling search tools (search_repositories, search_issues, search_users). There are no context cues, exclusions, or alternative recommendations; the agent must infer usage purely from the word 'code'.

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