repo_search_code

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never states that the operation is read-only, whether regex is supported (only the schema hints at it), how results are truncated or ordered, or whether searches respect ignore files/binary exclusion.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the searchable content types are front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is close to under-specification given the tool has no annotations.

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?

For a three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits the result shape (file paths? line numbers? snippets?) and any paging/limit semantics, which an agent needs to interpret output.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (root, query, maxResults) are already documented in the schema. The description adds a small amount by characterizing what query can match (symbols, signatures, string patterns), but nothing about root scoping or result-limit behavior beyond the schema's own text.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (repository code files) plus the kinds of content matched: symbol names, function signatures, string patterns. An agent can tell this is a text/code search rather than a structural query, but the description never names the closest sibling (repo_find_references) to make the boundary explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With repo_find_references, repo_find_dependencies, and repo_inspect in the sibling list, an agent must guess whether a symbol lookup belongs here or in repo_find_references; the description offers no routing rule.

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