search_similar_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (embedding query, returning top-k results) and the result payload shape, but it does not mention whether prior ingestion is required, whether the operation is read-only, or any error/rate-limit behavior. It is adequate for a search tool but not fully transparent.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences that state the core action and result format. Every phrase earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the query input, top_k behavior, and result fields. However, it does not differentiate from sibling search tools or mention the dependency on ingest_repo, leaving some selection uncertainty.

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 compensate. It does clarify the roles of both parameters: 'embed `query`' explains the query as a semantic input, and 'top-k matching code chunks' explains the top_k integer. However, it does not specify query format constraints or top_k bounds, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a specific action: semantic search that embeds the query and returns top-k matching code chunks. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by emphasizing 'semantic' and 'code chunks', though it does not 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus search_context or search_related_code. The description implies a semantic similarity use case but does not state prerequisites, such as requiring a previously ingested repository, nor does it offer exclusions or alternatives.

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