coding_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions auth routing but fails to state whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur, or what a typical response looks like. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 concise: two sentences plus two parameter lines. It front-loads the purpose and wastes no words. Every sentence is necessary.

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?

Given the complexity (2 params, output schema exists, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about the output format, how results are returned, and how to choose this over similar tools. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default fields, helping the agent understand parameter usage.

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 it runs the coding domain agent action 'search', specifying verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings (no other 'coding_search' tool), but it lacks specificity on what exactly is being searched (code, docs, etc.), which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like coding_read_code or coding_chat. It only gives implementation details (JWT, tenant, scope) without any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice.

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