explore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns only summaries and never raw file contents, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not address other behavioral aspects like state changes, permissions, or handling of large codebases.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that convey the purpose, key behavior, and a benefit. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential function and output nature but lacks details on return format, error responses, or completeness guarantees. For a tool with nested parameters, more context would be beneficial.

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 50%, with the required 'question' parameter well-described. The options object has sub-property descriptions, but the description adds value by stating the output is a summary, which helps interpret the parameters. However, it does not further clarify the options beyond what the schema provides.

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 purpose: 'Answer questions about the codebase using intelligent search.' It also distinguishes itself by specifying that it returns only a summary, never raw file contents, which differentiates it from siblings like analyze_file. The mention of 'token savings' further clarifies its utility for exploration tasks.

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 implies appropriate usage scenarios (exploration, overview, not raw file access) but does not explicitly list when not to use or suggest alternatives. The sibling tools provide context, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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