codebase_start_job_related_files_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the async nature, the requirement to wait for results, and the single-topic constraint. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. Minor gap: no mention of error cases or edge conditions.

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 front-loaded with the main action and includes necessary usage instructions. Some redundancy in the bolded repetition, but overall efficient for the information conveyed.

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 complexity (async, required parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage pattern, and relationship to sibling tools adequately. Could add a note on expected result content, but not critical.

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 already documents both parameters. The description adds emphasis on usage ('one topic per request') but does not provide new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 verb ('Start async related-file discovery') and resource ('find files relevant to single entity/action before codebase_start_job_analysis'), distinguishing from sibling tools by specifying its sequential usage and one-topic-per-request constraint.

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 explicitly provides usage guidelines: 'One topic or one context per request → wait for the result → send the next request!' and contrasts with trying to find multiple things at once, guiding the agent on correct invocation patterns.

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