explore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior (returns summary, never raw files) and suggests read-only usage, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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, front-loading the purpose and key behavioral constraint, then a benefit statement. No wasted 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not elaborate on the return format (e.g., structure of summary) or edge cases. It covers the basics but lacks depth needed for a nontrivial tool with nested options.

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 already provides descriptions for all parameters (question and options fields). The description adds no additional parameter-specific context; its mention of 'summary' is about output, not parameters. Given 50% schema coverage (some parameters may be missing descriptions), the description does not compensate.

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 answers questions about the codebase using intelligent search and returns only a summary. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'ask', which may have similar functionality.

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 mentions token savings for exploration tasks, implying efficiency, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_file' or 'ask'. No when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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