Search source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behaviors: symbol-based ranking and graph expansion that adds resolved callers/callees as neighbors. It says nothing about permissions, cost/latency, ranking fallback, or what happens with the non-enum parameters, so transparency is partial.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the expand behavior, then a usage cue. No padding, though the parameter detail sentence is dense and cryptic without surrounding context.

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?

A 9-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage needs considerably more from the description. It explains only one parameter interaction and omits the meaning, defaults, and effects of most arguments, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly.

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% and there are 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies expand='graph' and its interaction with profile 'locate', leaving limit, max_tokens, expand_k, expand_hops, and min_confidence completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ("Full-text search") and adds a distinguishing behavioral detail: results are ranked by enclosing symbol. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like find_symbols or inspect_symbol, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which search tool to pick.

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?

"Call before reading files" gives an implied usage context, suggesting this is a discovery/entry-point tool. But there is no when-not guidance and no explicit routing to alternatives such as find_symbols for symbol lookups, so the guidance stays at implication level.

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