search_code_repository

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. The agent receives no guidance on safety or consequences.

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 includes helpful query examples. However, it redundantly lists parameters in an Args section when the schema already defines them. The front-loading is good.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. However, the description lacks information about search behavior (e.g., result count, ordering, scope of repository), which would be helpful for a search tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description attempts to add meaning. For query, it adds 'What you're looking for.' For project_id and language, it adds restriction context. However, these are minimal and barely enhance the schema's own parameter names.

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 searches a code repository for prior code, variables, and treatments, with concrete query examples. It distinguishes this tool from sibling search tools (e.g., search_library, search_fulltext) by specifying its domain.

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 provides examples of queries and mentions what can be found, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied, not explicit.

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