Repo Context Pack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It lacks any mention of side effects (e.g., modifying files), permissions, performance, or output characteristics. The only behavioral hint is the purpose, but it does not disclose what the tool does beyond 'lookup', leaving significant transparency gaps.

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 concise with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence establishes purpose, and the second provides actionable guidance on response_mode. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy.

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 complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, and a suite of sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the overall search mechanism, parameter interactions, return format, or how this tool compares to siblings like repo_semantic_search. Important context is missing for effective agent usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 15 parameters, the description only addresses the 'response_mode' parameter, providing usage guidance for its three values. All other parameters (mode, query, max_results, etc.) are left undocumented, offering minimal added value over the schema.

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 it is a 'task-oriented code lookup for unknown file locations', specifying a verb (lookup) and resource (code in repo). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'unknown file locations' and providing response_mode options, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like repo_semantic_search.

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 guidance on when to use (for unknown file locations) and how to choose response_mode: 'paths_only for first-pass scouting', 'compact for short snippets', 'snippets for ranking/debug detail'. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternatives beyond these modes.

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