Repo Semantic Search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose response-size/cost tradeoffs via paths_only vs snippets. However it never states the operation is read-only/non-mutating, nor does it mention latency, indexing prerequisites, or what happens with an unindexed project — meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler: the purpose leads and the routing guidance follows. Some jargon ('raw ranking', 'scores') is compressed rather than explained, but nothing is wasted.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the routing decision but not the mechanics an agent needs to call it correctly — mode/response_mode semantics, result-count and context-size behavior, or output shape are all absent.

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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only alludes to response_mode values (paths_only/snippets) and to 'scores'; the mode enum (keyword/hybrid/semantic), max_results, max_context_chars, max_snippet_chars, and project_path are left entirely undocumented.

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 and resource ('debug raw semantic or hybrid ranking over indexed chunks') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling repo_context_pack for normal lookups. An agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use routing: prefer repo_context_pack for normal lookup, use paths_only to scout cheaply, and snippets only when scores or fuller snippets are needed. This is exactly the alternative-selection guidance the dimension asks for.

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