search_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the search is read-only, how results are returned, or any limitations (e.g., exact vs. partial matching). The mention of 'scanned project' adds some context but falls short of transparently describing the tool's behavior.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple one-parameter search tool, the description provides a clear scope but lacks critical context such as return format, behavioral details, or usage alternatives. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate more; it falls short of fully rounding out the tool's context, though it remains minimally viable.

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?

The schema already documents the 'query' parameter with 100% coverage, but the description adds valuable meaning by specifying the acceptable targets (C++ classes, structs, enums, interfaces). This clarifies what a valid query looks like beyond the generic schema text, adding meaningful semantic context.

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 the tool searches for C++ classes, structs, enums, or interfaces in the scanned Unreal project. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_assets (which searches assets) and find_class_usage (which finds usages), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 you need to locate specific C++ code entities, and it mentions the prerequisite that the project must be scanned. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when-not-to-use or alternatives among the many sibling tools, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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