Search source bodies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the FTS5 mechanism, the bounded nature of snippets, and the return contents. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether an index must exist beforehand, or how limits such as max_tokens affect the results beyond the vague term 'bounded'.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place by specifying scope, mechanism, and return values: 'indexed symbol bodies', 'FTS5', 'bounded source snipets, symbol IDs and line evidence'.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It gives a clear core purpose but omits parameter semantics, tool-selection guidance relative to find_symbols, and any behavioral caveats or result-shaping details, leaving an agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 the description does not explain any of the five parameters. It hints that 'query' is an FTS5 query but does not clarify repo_id, limit, profile, or max_tokens. The agent cannot reliably infer parameter semantics from the description alone.

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 states a specific verb 'Search', a precise resource 'indexed symbol bodies', the mechanism 'FTS5', and the expected outputs 'bounded source snippets, symbol IDs and line evidence'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_symbols, which likely focuses on symbols rather than source bodies.

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 implies usage when one needs to search inside symbol source bodies, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools such as find_symbols or get_symbol_context. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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