search_code

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: case-sensitive substring matching, dual modes (line/char) based on minification detection, and return structure. It transparently explains all relevant behaviors.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence and an Args section. It is slightly verbose due to detailed explanations, but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but front-loading is effective.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers return format (dict with matches, total_matches, mode). All 5 parameters are fully explained, and the behavior is comprehensively described for a search tool. No gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must carry full parameter meaning. It does so thoroughly: keyword (case-sensitive substring), script_url (None vs specific, inline support), context_chars and context_lines with defaults and mode relevance, max_results with default. No parameter is left ambiguous.

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 searches for a keyword in loaded scripts, and explicitly mentions it replaces two older tools, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools which are all browser automation or scripting actions.

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 explains when to use script_url=None (all scripts) versus a specific script_url (single script), and details auto-detection of minified files for mode selection. It also references the two replaced tools, providing clear context for usage without needing sibling comparison.

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