sourcegraph_search_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it searches code and supports operators, but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or limitations such as result caps or default patterns.

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 concise, two sentences long, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 single-parameter tool with a rich schema, the description covers the core purpose and operator support. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., limitations) and does not guide the user toward or away from the sibling tool, making it incomplete for a tool in a contextual set.

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 description for the query parameter is very detailed, listing operators and examples. The tool description adds only a general mention of operators, which does not exceed what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Search code across repositories using Sourcegraph.' This is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish it from the sibling tool sourcegraph_deep_search, so it doesn't fully differentiate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling sourcegraph_deep_search. The description mentions supported operators but does not provide context for selecting this tool over alternatives, such as when a deep search is needed.

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