search_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'safe defaults' but does not specify what those defaults are, nor does it describe output format, limit handling, or whether the operation is read-only. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately concise, though the vague phrase 'safe defaults' could be expanded without harming conciseness.

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?

This tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is far too thin to cover the essentials: parameter meaning, return structure, or operational behavior. It is inadequate for a tool with this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no information about any of the five parameters (query, cwd, glob, depth, caseSensitive). The agent must rely on parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 performs a code search using ripgrep, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('code'). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like start_search or find_symbol, but the reference to ripgrep and 'safe defaults' gives some distinguishing detail.

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 alternatives like start_search or ide_symbol_search. The description implies it is a general code search, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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