search_code_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention return format, side effects (e.g., file scanning), performance implications, or security boundaries (though rootDir and projectRoot are in schema). The minimal description fails to inform the agent about key 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 very concise: one sentence. While it is not verbose, it could benefit from a brief sentence about use case or typical scenarios. Nonetheless, it avoids unnecessary 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 high parameter count (9), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain pagination (startIndex, maxResults), fuzzy matching behavior, or how results are returned. Critical context for an agent to use the tool effectively is missing.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning or context for parameters like fuzzyMatch or excludeDirs. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as description adds no value beyond schema.

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 code patterns across multiple files. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_symbols, which might also search for patterns. A more precise definition of 'code patterns' (e.g., regex) would improve clarity.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_symbols or analyze_impact. The description lacks context for appropriate invocation.

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