search_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two useful traits: matching is case-insensitive and results are formatted path:line: text. It omits significant behavior such as the default .cs-only scope, truncation at max_results, and whether the search is repo-wide or subtree-scoped.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the match-mode plus return format are placed first. It is lean to the point of under-specification given four undocumented parameters, but no sentence is wasted.

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 values need not be re-explained, and the terse description covers the core idea. But for a four-parameter search tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, omitting the extension default, result cap, and path scoping leaves the agent unable to predict search scope.

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%, so the description must explain all four parameters, and it explains essentially none: extension, max_results, and path_prefix are never mentioned, and the hidden default .cs filter materially changes results. Only the 'case-insensitive substring' phrasing adds semantic meaning, and only to query.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (substring search of the source) and even gives the match mode and return shape, which is far better than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_symbols, get_symbol, or get_file, so the agent must infer that this is the free-text search path.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'substring search' suggests text search as opposed to symbol or file listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Nothing warns the agent to prefer get_symbol or list_symbols for known identifiers.

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