search_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'read-only workspace root' but does not explicitly confirm the tool is read-only, nor does it discuss side effects, permissions, search limitations (e.g., binary files, recursion, case sensitivity). This lack of transparency could lead to incorrect assumptions.

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 a single sentence that is concise and to the point. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior. Missing details include return format, result limits, recursion behavior, and case sensitivity. For a search tool, more completeness is expected.

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 the parameter descriptions are already present. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3. It does not enhance understanding of parameters.

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 the tool searches for text matches within the configured read-only workspace root. The verb 'search' and resource 'text matches' are specific, and the scope is defined. Even without sibling tools, the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies it is for text search inside the workspace, but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. Given no sibling tools, the lack of differentiation is less critical, but some guidance on when to choose this tool would be helpful.

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