project_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. On top of that the description discloses output shape (path:lines headers, call outlines, numbered source lines), a 6000-char cap with stated truncation, and the important caveat that hits are unverified leads rather than confirmed claims.

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?

Extremely dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then output shape, then format switch, then the reliability caveat. The long parenthetical is information-rich rather than padded, though the telegraphic style borders on terse.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it describes the plain-text layout, the char cap, and truncation reporting, plus the 'leads not verified claims' caveat. This is nearly complete for a read-only 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents question, format, and max_items with enums and defaults. The description's only parameter-level addition is the 'format=json for programs' guidance, which largely restates the enum meaning, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: answering location/handler questions by returning ranked code locations. The 'Where is X / what handles Y' framing makes the retrieval purpose immediately concrete. It does not differentiate itself from siblings analyze, code_check, or run_tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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: it is clearly a lookup tool, and 'format=json for programs' hints at a caller profile. However, no when-to-use/when-not conditions and no alternatives (analyze, code_check) are named, leaving the agent to infer routing between siblings.

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