search_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the search is index-based (implied speed) but doesn't state whether results include file paths only or content snippets, how matches are ranked, whether the index might be stale, or what happens if the index isn't built. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

Single concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Efficient and free of waste. Slightly under-specified but the terseness is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry more weight. For a search tool returning potentially unbounded match results, it doesn't state return format, how matches are presented, or behavior when nothing is found. The index-awareness nuance is left underdeveloped — what does indexing buy the user? Given these gaps, completeness is limited for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters ('query', 'limit', 'repository'). The description adds minimal value beyond schema — it doesn't clarify query syntax (regex? plain text? case-sensitivity), how 'repository' is formatted beyond the example, or what 'limit' caps. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema handles the documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') plus resource ('filenames and file contents') and scope ('local official Flutter/Dart repositories index-aware'). It conveys an efficient indexed full-text/code search capability. Sibling differentiation is moderate — it's clearly a search tool, distinct from find_examples/find_tests which are more targeted, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 as a general repository search, but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like find_examples, find_tests, search_docs, or find_widget. It mentions 'index-aware' which hints at efficiency but provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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