search_logic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful behaviors: the result granularity (every routine/rung/line) and regex support. It is silent on case sensitivity, behavior with an invalid or missing l5x_path, and cost on large projects, so the behavioral picture is only partially filled in.

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?

Front-loads purpose and return shape, then answers the usage question, then lists args — a sensible order with no filler prose. The args block is somewhat redundant in phrasing but justified given the schema carries no parameter descriptions.

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?

An output schema exists, so the brief mention of return structure is a bonus rather than a requirement, and the regex capability is disclosed. What remains missing is edge-case behavior — no-match results, invalid paths, case sensitivity — which an agent would want for a search tool over an entire project file.

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%, but the description compensates well for `pattern` by explaining it accepts a tag name, AOI name, or regex pattern — information absent from the schema. `l5x_path` is only restated as "Path to a .l5x file," adding essentially nothing beyond the name, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (tag, AOI, or pattern) plus the exact scope: across all routines in an L5X project, returning every routine/rung/line that references the match. This clearly separates it from the get_* siblings (get_tag, get_aoi, get_routine), which retrieve a known object rather than locate references to it.

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?

Gives concrete trigger questions — "Where is this tag used?" and "Which routines reference this AOI?" — that tell the agent exactly when this tool applies. It does not, however, name an alternative or state exclusions (e.g., use get_tag when you already know the tag exists), so it falls short of a 5.

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