sourcegraph_deep_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that it uses Sourcegraph's agentic search (REST API v6.7+) and may take 10-60 seconds, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe any side effects, which is a gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 two sentences: the first gives the primary purpose with examples, the second adds key technical details about the underlying API and latency. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value without 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not describe the output format or content of the answer. It covers the key operational context (time, API) but misses return value expectations and any caveats about scope or limitations.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the question parameter with examples, but it does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The timeout_seconds parameter is not mentioned in the description but is fully covered by the schema.

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 this is an AI-powered deep search for natural language questions about a codebase, with concrete examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling sourcegraph_search_code by emphasizing natural language and agentic search, and from other Jira tools which are unrelated.

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 provides clear usage context by giving example questions and noting it may take 10-60 seconds. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use sourcegraph_search_code instead of this tool, though the natural language focus implies it for conversational queries.

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