search_kernel_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search is hybrid, covers all indexed data, and returns a dictionary with results and correlated evidence sources. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, or performance characteristics.

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 and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by an Args list and a Returns line. Every line contributes useful information without 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?

Given the tool has an output schema and four clearly documented parameters, the description provides enough context for effective use. It explains what the tool searches, how to filter, and what kind of result to expect, though it leaves 'hybrid search' semantics open-ended.

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?

The Args section adds meaningful descriptions for every parameter, such as 'repo: Optional repository to filter by' and 'limit: Maximum number of results to return.' This compensates for the input schema's lack of property descriptions and clarifies each parameter's role.

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 'Search for kernel code using hybrid search across all indexed data,' identifying a specific verb, resource, and scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like lookup_symbol or search_patches beyond the resource type.

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 implies usage for searching kernel code across all indexed data, and optional repo/subsystem filters suggest narrowing the search. But it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions.

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