coding_search

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

It adds useful context about JWT/tenant/company scoping and dispatcher routing beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose what the underlying search action affects, any side effects, or why the destructiveHint annotation is present. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, routing context, and parameter meanings in a few lines. No filler 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?

The routing and scope details are helpful, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, the description does not clarify what target 'search' operates on, what a successful search returns conceptually, or when to prefer this over related coding search/read tools.

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%, but the Args block adds minimal semantics: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string. This helps, though it remains vague about the expected structure or content of the inputs and what kinds of messages are valid.

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 runs a specific action ('coding domain agent action `search`') and names the routing mechanism. It is distinguishable from siblings like coding_read_code or coding_explain_code via the 'search' action, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 explains how the tool routes internally but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus other coding-domain or search tools. It implies use via 'free-text objective' but lacks explicit alternatives, exclusions, or conditions.

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