search_repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context beyond the schema: the dependency on ensure_repo and the side effect of resetting the idle timer. However, it does not describe return format, error behavior if the repo isn't cloned, or permissions, leaving some gaps.

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 three short sentences, all essential: purpose, optional parameters, prerequisite, and a behavioral note. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or verbose language.

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 search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, parameters, and prerequisite. It could mention the return format or error behavior, but the given context (including sibling tools) makes the tool's role clear enough. It is complete relative to its simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds marginal value by restating 'path (subdir)' and providing an example fileGlob, but it does not deepen understanding beyond the schema descriptions. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Search for text or regex in the cloned repo.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_file and list_directory by focusing on content search across the repo, and mentions optional path/fileGlob to refine the search.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Call ensure_repo first,' providing a clear prerequisite and implied ordering. It also explains the optional parameters (path, fileGlob) and the side effect of resetting the idle timer. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, though the sibling tools are distinct enough.

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