search_code

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It discloses that search uses BM25 and that results are re-ranked by call-graph importance, which is valuable non-obvious behavior. It could mention pagination or query-syntax details, but the core operation and ordering semantics are transparent.

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 sentences with no filler: the first defines scope, the second states when to use it, and the third explains ranking behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the key use-case guidance 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?

Given the output schema and only two straightforward parameters, the description is nearly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, use case, searchable content, and result ordering. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name the exact-identifier sibling, but the sibling context and 'not the identifier' phrasing make the intended boundary clear.

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?

The input schema describes both parameters completely, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that `query` is free-text and explains why certain matches outrank others, but it does not add per-parameter syntax or formatting detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Full-text search') and a precise resource scope ('symbol names, signatures and docstrings'). The phrase 'Use when you know the intent but not the identifier' clearly distinguishes it from exact-identifier lookup tools such as find_symbol.

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 an explicit usage condition: use it when the intent is known but the identifier is not. It does not name the alternative tool directly, but the contrast with exact-lookup siblings is strongly implied by the wording and the sibling list.

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