cross_repo_search

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it requires preregistered repos and returns empty results if none are found. It does not cover output format or performance, but for a search tool these are secondary; the stated edge case (empty results) is valuable.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a two-line parameter explanation, a precondition statement, and a bullet list of invocation scenarios. Every sentence adds unique value without redundancy.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, parameter scope, prerequisites, and common use cases. It could be enhanced by specifying what constitutes 'knowledge' (e.g., code, documentation) and the result format, but current information is sufficient for most agent decisions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. Only the 'scope' parameter receives meaningful explanation (with examples of 'project' and 'org'). The 'query' and 'top_k' parameters are entirely undocumented in text, leaving the agent without guidance on their semantics beyond type/name.

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 action ('Search knowledge') and the resource ('sibling repositories'). It further disambiguates from sibling tools like 'lookup_symbol' by referencing its role in the workflow and explicitly describing scope options that differentiate it from org-wide searches.

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 provides explicit conditions for when to invoke the tool (e.g., after 'lookup_symbol returned empty', for cross-service architecture questions) and when to use sparingly (broader scope). It also mentions the prerequisite ('repos linked via cognirepo init'), offering clear decision support for the agent.

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