ado_git_search_code

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that the search returns character offsets rather than matched text, and tells the user to fetch the file separately. This is a meaningful addition that helps the agent set correct expectations.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then explains the return behavior, then provides usage and exclusion guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and it is efficiently structured.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent can expect (files, paths, repository names, character offsets). It also explains the limitation (no matched text) and directs the agent to a follow-up action. With all parameters documented in the schema and this description covering output and exclusions, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 all parameters already have definitions. The description reinforces the optional scoping of project and repositoryName but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. It meets the baseline for high coverage, neither adding nor detracting significantly.

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 code across Azure DevOps repositories, specifies the return format (matching files with paths, repository names, and character offsets), and explicitly distinguishes itself from work item and wiki search by naming the sibling tool ado_workitems_query. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicit usage guidance: it tells the agent it can optionally scope to a project or repository, instructs the agent to fetch the file via the repository API to read matched text, and explicitly states what the tool does NOT do (search work items/wiki) while naming the alternative tool. This is comprehensive and actionable.

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