repo_search

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context ('text files', 'without leaving its root'), but does not disclose how search behaves with binary files, hidden paths, symlinks, or what output format is returned.

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: it names the action, resource, and constraint efficiently. It is not scored as 5 because it is too terse relative to the four-parameter complexity and leaves important guidance unsaid.

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?

With four parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description gives only the bare purpose. An agent still cannot determine path_prefix format, case-sensitivity defaults, result limits/behavior, or return shape, so the tool is not fully callable from the description alone.

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 adds no per-parameter meaning. It does not explain query syntax, how path_prefix is interpreted, the default for case_sensitive, or what max_results controls. With four parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate.

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 action ('Search text files'), a clear resource ('under the target repository'), and a distinguishing constraint ('without leaving its root'). This lets an agent separate it from siblings like repo_read or repo_snapshot without opening schemas.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need text-file search scoped to the repository root. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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