search_code

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It notes the tool returns 'matching files with line-level context' and implies read-only behavior, but does not disclose pagination limits, rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential performance impacts of global searches.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given 6 parameters (1 required), full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's high-level behavior and results. Minor gaps remain in explaining when to use project-specific vs. global search, but the schema covers parameter details.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 6 parameters, so the description adds minimal extra value beyond stating it returns line-level context. The schema already explains scope, project, ref, pagination, etc.

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 code snippets across CERN GitLab repositories, with global or project-specific scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_projects and search_issues by focusing on code content.

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 mentions global vs. project search and provides a use case for finding usage examples, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like list_project_files or get_file_content.

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