deep_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It adds context about saving the LLM's context window and delegates to the Antigravity CLI, implying subprocess execution, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior or output format. Some behavioral details like whether it modifies the repo remain implicit.

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 concise sentences front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concrete examples and a directive. Every part adds value with no filler.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and intended use but not the return format or side effects. Without annotations, some behavioral information is absent, though the description is adequate for a code-search tool. A note about output structure would improve completeness.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'when did X change' and 'where is Y used' loosely connects to the query parameter but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. No credit beyond baseline.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Delegate codebase archaeology', 'git log/diff/blame spelunking', 'wide greps'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on codebase history and search, which is a distinct purpose.

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 directs when to use: 'USE THIS instead of running many search commands yourself — it saves your context.' This provides a clear alternative and contextual trigger, though it doesn't name sibling tools, the directive is specific and actionable.

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