fx_search_code

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only what is scanned. It says nothing about permissions/auth needed, whether the search is read-only (implied by "Busca" but never stated), performance or timeout risk on a large codebase, result caps, or how regex mode changes behaviour. For an unannotated tool this is a significant gap.

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?

One tightly written sentence with no filler, and the search targets are front-loaded immediately after the verb. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate for a read tool whose return shape and limits matter. It never indicates the result format (file paths, line numbers?), whether matches are capped, or what scope is used when scopePath is omitted, leaving the caller to guess before invoking.

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 100%, so query, isRegex and scopePath are already documented in the schema (including the example "resources/[scripts]"). The description adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond that, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Busca") plus the resource and the exact artifact types it scans: texto, eventos de rede (RegisterNetEvent, TriggerClientEvent), exports e queries nos recursos do servidor. That is far more concrete than a generic "search" and clearly separates it from the sibling file/resource tools. It stops short of naming a sibling as the non-alternative, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for locating code across resources, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no case for when to prefer fx_read_file or fx_list_live_resources instead, and no note on scope defaults (all resources vs a subfolder). Nothing misleading, but nothing guiding either.

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