why_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. It discloses that answers come from crew memory and are ranked, indicating a read-only lookup. However, it does not mention behavior on no matches, ranking criteria, or scope limitations. The basic transparency is there, but at a minimum level for a lookup tool.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core question in quotes, and immediately states the sources and ordering. Every word contributes; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, data source, and ranking behavior. Minor gaps include handling of empty results and explicit note that it is read-only, but these are not critical given the schema and simplicity.

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?

With only one parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description must explain 'target'. It implies target is the path or code reference being questioned, but the exact format (e.g., full path, partial, regex) is unspecified. It adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but not enough to fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 explicitly states a specific verb ('Lookup') and resource ('decisions/solutions/gotchas/patterns linked to a path'), and directly answers the tool's namesake question 'Why does this code/file exist?'. It clearly distinguishes from generic memory tools like search_memory by focusing on rationale and the 'why', not merely retrieving facts.

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 implies the tool is for understanding the rationale behind code, but it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools such as recall or search_memory, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is clear but exclusions and alternative routing are absent.

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