deep_search

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full load. It does add real behavioral context that the name alone doesn't: work is delegated to an external CLI, it is context-saving, and the schema hints at model/effort tuning. But it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, expected latency, cost, or what happens on failure — meaningful gaps for a delegated agentic search.

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?

Two sentences of dense, front-loaded fragments with zero filler; the imperative selection cue sits at the end where it reads as the takeaway. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should signal what comes back; "saves your context" only hints at a condensed report rather than stating the return shape (findings prose, citations, code excerpts). For a 4-param delegation tool with no annotations, the when-to-use story is solid but the result and cost profile are underspecified.

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 cwd, model, query, and effort with examples and an enum. The description adds example query phrasings that clarify intent but no format, syntax, or defaulting details beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ("delegate") plus a concrete resource and scope: git log/diff/blame, wide greps, and historical 'when/why did X change' questions. An agent can picture the exact class of task it handles. It stops short of naming how it differs from the closest sibling (analyze_files), leaving that boundary to inference.

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?

"USE THIS instead of running many search commands yourself" gives an explicit positive selection rule with a stated rationale (context savings), and the quoted example queries model the intended input shape. No when-not-to-use case or exclusion relative to a specific sibling is given.

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