searchInPackage

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true/destructiveHint=false, so the description need not re-state safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context: it walks and reads every source it traverses, and thus can be expensive, with an explicit mitigation. It also describes the response content ('matching objects, the line numbers and the lines') and progress reporting, enriching the annotation-only view.

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?

Two dense sentences: the first defines purpose and differentiator, the second covers output, scope, and a caveat with mitigation. No filler.

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?

The description covers the key behavioral aspects: scope (whole package plus sub-packages), output (matches with line numbers/lines and progress), and risk (reads every source) with mitigation. With no output schema, the described response is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call it and understand results.

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 baseline is 3. The description references objectTypes and maxObjects in a usage context, but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. No extra meaning is needed.

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 and resource ('Search the sources of a whole package') and adds the key differentiator 'following its sub-packages'. It contrasts itself with a manual multi-step process, making it distinct from sibling search tools like searchObject or findInSource.

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?

States the benefit 'one call instead of a package listing plus a read and a search per object', clearly identifying the use case. It also gives conditional guidance to 'narrow it with objectTypes and maxObjects on a large package', but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions.

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