search_code

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool performs only text/regex search, no semantic analysis, and hits are not guaranteed to be definitions. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but the behavioral limitations are well-covered.

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 efficiently structured: starts with purpose, then usage guidance, then parameter tips. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 (6 parameters, output schema present, sibling tool), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, parameter behavior, limitations, and post-search workflow. It is fully adequate without ambiguity.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining default query interpretation, when to use literal=true, and provides examples for lang, path, and repo filters. This goes beyond the schema's bare definitions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool locates source code text and file locations in Zoekt-indexed repositories. It distinguishes from sibling tool get_file_context by specifying that this tool searches for code patterns, while the sibling handles context after hits are obtained.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use scenarios (symbol definitions, error messages, config usage, etc.), when-not-to-use (when understanding surrounding implementation, use get_file_context instead), and guidance on parameter usage (literal flag for special characters, filters for known scopes).

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