search_code

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

No annotations are present, and the description is too brief. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as case sensitivity, regex support, or performance implications, leaving the agent uncertain about the matching behavior.

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 a single short sentence without fluff, but it is overly minimal. It could be slightly expanded to add value without sacrificing conciseness.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more contextual completeness. It omits result format, pagination, error handling, and behavior with no matches, leaving significant gaps for a text search 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%, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Details like pattern format (regex vs plain text), codebase_id significance, and max_results behavior are missing, relying solely on the schema's generic descriptions.

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 function: searching through indexed code using text pattern matching. This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_symbols or find_references.

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 alternatives, such as search_symbols or find_callers. The description lacks context for choosing this tool over others in the sibling list.

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