search_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses search modes, ranking algorithm, and return type, but omits details like authentication requirements, scope (all repos vs. selected), or error handling. This is useful but not comprehensive.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each phrase adds useful information (search engine, ranking, modes, return type), with no wasted words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description offers a high-level summary of results but does not detail the result object structure. However, it covers the core search behavior, modes, and ranking, which is adequate for a search tool. Missing details like result fields are not critical given the schema's parameter coverage.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the substring mode's minimum 3-character requirement, which is not in the schema, and by explaining the return type (ranked results with snippets). This goes beyond the schema 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 a specific action ('Search indexed code') with technical detail (FTS5, BM25 ranking). It distinguishes from siblings like search_file by specifying indexed code and search modes, making it unambiguous.

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 implies usage for general code search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like search_implementation or search_file. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the context implied rather than explicit.

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