search_code_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden, yet it says nothing about what comes back (matches, files, line numbers), result limits, or whether 'across all projects' respects permissions. The pattern semantics (regex vs literal, case sensitivity) are also undisclosed.

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?

One short sentence with zero waste and no filler, though the brevity contributes to the specification gaps noted elsewhere.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least hint at return shape and pattern format. As written, an agent knows only that it searches projects, not how to phrase the pattern or what to expect back.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter ('Code pattern or keyword to search for'), so the schema already establishes meaning. The description only adds the 'across all projects' scoping, and doesn't clarify pattern syntax or matching behavior.

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?

A specific verb+resource ('Search for code patterns') with scope ('across all projects'), which is more than the title alone conveys. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from any sibling, though the sibling list contains only project-management tools, so ambiguity risk is low.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no alternatives. The description never says whether this is for finding definitions, usages, or whether it complements any of the listed project tools.

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