Repo Context Pack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the default response_mode is paths_only, and mode=keyword avoids embedding requests (an implicit no-network path). However it says nothing about permissions, side effects, latency, or what the payload actually contains beyond the three response modes.

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?

Three tight sentences with the primary routing statement front-loaded and no filler. Slightly dense in the middle sentence but every clause carries information.

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 15-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits what a 'context pack' returns, how related-file expansion works, and the meaning of nearly all tuning parameters. An agent could call it with just query, but would be guessing on every other field.

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% across 15 parameters, yet the description explains only response_mode and the keyword value of mode. The thirteen sizing/related-context parameters (max_results, related_depth, include_related_snippets, etc.) get no semantic explanation, so the compensation is far from complete.

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+resource ('task-oriented code lookup') and a scoping condition ('for unknown file locations'), which tells an agent this is a discovery tool rather than an index or diagnostic one. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it competes with (repo_semantic_search), so differentiation is inferred from the mode/embedding hint rather than stated.

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 clear context ('Preferred ... for unknown file locations') and a conditional routing rule: use mode=keyword when you want local lookup without embedding requests. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so it stops short of full 5-level guidance.

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