query_codebase

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the automatic escalation mechanism and the prerequisite. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, but the description clarifies the dynamic behavior of combining tools.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: one stating the tool's function and one providing a prerequisite. No unnecessary words, all information is front-loaded and valuable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough. It explains behavior and prerequisites. Minor omission: how 'insufficient' is determined, but that is acceptable for a query tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds limited additional meaning beyond the schema, such as implying the auto_escalate parameter's role, but it is not necessary. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose as a smart query that combines ask_question with automatic escalation to deep_research, serving as a single entry point for codebase Q&A. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_question and deep_research.

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 provides a clear prerequisite (index_repository must be called first) and implies it should be used as the primary entry point for codebase queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, which would improve guidance.

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