search_crossproject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: discloses the ripgrep backend, output modes, context lines, case-insensitive matching, pagination, and the contextBefore/contextAfter array shape when contextLines is used. Minor gaps remain on default behaviors and error conditions, but for an unannotated tool this is substantial disclosure.

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 information-dense sentences with zero filler: purpose/scope first, usage guidance second, behavioral details third. Each sentence adds distinct value and the most decision-relevant info (what it searches, where) is front-loaded.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers return shape, scoping, and when to avoid the tool. Remaining gaps are low-stakes for a read-only search — no mention of error handling (e.g., unconfigured workspace) or performance limits, though the schema's workspace enum hints at the configuration issue.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning beyond the schema: it ties pagination (limit/offset), outputMode semantics, and the contextLines return-structure together, and explains what 'workspace' means operationally (configured companion repo).

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+resource: 'Search text or regex in a configured workspace root, usually a companion repo outside the current project workspace.' The scope qualifier ('outside the current project workspace') sharply differentiates it from the sibling tools (read/write/edit/list/run_crossproject) and from built-in code navigation.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: 'Prefer built-in code navigation/LSP tools in the current workspace when they apply.' This tells the agent when NOT to use the tool, though it names a tool category rather than specific sibling tools or concrete conditions for choosing this one.

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