explore

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that code never enters the agent's context (only the answer does), a key behavioral trait. It also hints at cost efficiency ('cheap counterpart'). No destructive or safety concerns are relevant.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, uses simple language, and avoids 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?

No output schema, but the description implies an answer is returned. For a read-only exploration tool, the description covers modes, parameters, and a key behavioral constraint (context isolation). Minor gap: could specify if errors are returned for missing files, 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral difference of omitting vs. providing the 'files' parameter and clarifies the 'question' parameter's optional behavior, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Read-only codebase exploration' and explains two distinct modes (with/without files), effectively distinguishing its purpose from sibling tools like 'delegate' and 'follow_up'.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use each mode (omit files for a general map, pass files for specific questions). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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