code_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful search behavior: exact-fragment matching, UTF-8 file scope, and automatic exclusion of generated/vendor directories and sensitive files. It does not mention matching semantics or result behavior, but the stated exclusions are valuable behavioral context beyond a generic 'search' claim.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that packs the action, target, and key exclusions without filler. Every phrase contributes information an agent needs for selection and invocation.

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?

For a three-parameter read-only search tool, the description is nearly complete: it defines the query type, applicable file set, and ignored paths, and the schema covers ID format and result limits. It omits return-format details and what counts as 'sensitive files,' but no output schema exists and those gaps are not critical for invoking the tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the query parameter semantics ('exact text fragment') and the file scope, but it does not explain projectId or maxResults beyond what their names and schema constraints already imply. The compensation is partial, not comprehensive.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('UTF-8 project files'), and a precise matching mode ('exact text fragment'), which clearly conveys what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like file_read or git_diff, but the 'project files' and 'exact text fragment' wording makes its purpose distinguishable.

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 implies the intended use case (finding an exact text occurrence in a project) and scopes it to UTF-8 files while excluding generated/vendor and sensitive files. It provides no explicit 'when to use this vs. alternatives' guidance, so an agent must infer the selection from tool names.

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