deep_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool delegates to a CLI and performs various search operations, which implies a read-only nature, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention side effects, output format, or performance implications. The 'saves your context' phrase hints at the tool's execution model but lacks detail.

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-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clear usage directive. Every sentence contributes value, using concrete examples and formatting to make the purpose and benefit immediately clear. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides substantial context: it explains what the tool does, gives usage scenarios, and explains why to use it. It lacks explicit return-value behavior, but given the search/delegation nature, the reader can infer the output. The description is fairly complete for its complexity level, leaving only minor gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (query, cwd, model) with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-related semantics beyond the schema examples, so 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: 'Delegate codebase archaeology to the Antigravity CLI: git log/diff/blame spelunking, wide greps across a repo, 'when/why did X change', 'where is Y used'.' This is a specific verb+resource with concrete examples, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like web_lookup and analyze_files by focusing on deep codebase exploration.

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 gives explicit usage guidance with 'USE THIS instead of running many search commands yourself — it saves your context.' This indicates when to use the tool (for deep searches to offload work) and implicitly against manual command running. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools but does provide clear context and an imperative for use.

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