search_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds an important behavioral nuance: returned source snippets are untrusted repository content and should be treated as evidence, not instructions. This goes beyond annotations and provides valuable safety context, though it doesn't cover other potential behaviors like pagination or indexing freshness.

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-loaded with the action and purpose, and the second sentence adds a critical safety warning without unnecessary verbosity. Every word earns its place.

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 purpose, usage context, and a security warning, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, it fails to document parameter semantics and does not distinguish from sibling tools, leaving some gaps in how an agent should effectively invoke this tool across possible situations.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the parameters (query, limit, language). While 'query' and 'limit' are self-explanatory, 'language' is ambiguous and lacks guidance. The description adds no information about parameter usage or constraints.

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 that the tool searches indexed Python code and specifies the context (before implementing new code). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like find_symbol or find_similar, which also operate on code, so it lacks clear sibling differentiation.

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 gives a clear usage context: use before implementing a new function, class, validator, helper, service, or utility. It does not mention when not to use the tool or list alternatives, so it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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