search_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the pipeline: vector search, symbol extraction, one-hop graph expansion, and the exact combined result fields (similar_chunks and related_symbols). This is strong transparency beyond a simple action statement.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and then details the mechanism and output fields. The output format is presented clearly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is quite complete: it explains the process, the inputs' roles, and the exact return structure. It could mention edge cases or error behavior, but the core functionality and expected output are clearly covered, making it sufficient for a typical agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to the parameters: 'query' is the vector search term, 'top-k' is the number of hits, and 'one hop' explains the default graph expansion depth (hops). It does not explicitly mention that hops is configurable, but the schema's default and the description's narrative cover the core semantics.

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 opens with 'Two-stage retrieval in one call: semantic search + graph expansion', which precisely states the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like search_similar_code (semantic only) and search_related_code (graph only). It clearly identifies the resource (context combining chunks and symbols).

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 the tool is used when both semantic and graph context are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over the sibling tools or mention alternatives. The phrase 'in one call' hints at consolidation, but no direct when/when-not guidance is provided.

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