module_search

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'entities clangd does not expose as symbols,' which clarifies its scope. However, it doesn't disclose return behavior, whether it performs a read-only operation, or any side effects. It's a search tool, so it's intuitively non-destructive, but that's not explicit.

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 one sentence, concise, and front-loads the core action. Every word adds value; no fluff or 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It covers purpose and scope, but lacks details on result formatting, potential empty results, or how this complements the sibling tools. A bit more explanation of what 'entities' means would enhance completeness.

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?

The schema has a single parameter 'query' with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description mentions 'Search named...' implying the query parameter is a name pattern. This adds some meaning, but it could be more explicit about format (e.g., exact name vs. substring, wildcards). Baseline is 3 given only one parameter and minimal schema info, slight credit for implying a name-based search.

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 purpose is clear: it searches named C++ modules and partitions, specifically targeting entities not exposed by clangd's symbol search. The verb 'Search' is concrete, the resource is specified ('C++ modules and partitions'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `workspace_symbols` and `document_symbols` by including module/partition entities.

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 a specific use case: when you need to find C++ modules and partitions, which are not covered by standard symbol searches. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'use this instead of workspace_symbols' or provide exclusions, but the distinction is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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