search-source

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that decompilation writes to a temporary directory, preserves the tree on disk for follow-up, and returns the outDir path. It does not mention safety or permissions, but the main behaviors are transparent.

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?

Three sentences, all informative and front-loaded. The first sentence captures the core action, the second explains output, and the third adds key behavioral detail. No extraneous 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains both return values and disk persistence. It covers the necessary context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, given the sibling tool set.

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 high (75%), but the description adds value by explaining the purpose of outDir (optional reuse, returned path) and the pattern's case-insensitive nature. This provides context beyond the schema definitions.

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 decompiles an assembly and then greps its C# source for a pattern, distinguishing it from sibling tools like decompile-assembly (decompilation only) and decompile-type (specific type decompilation). It specifies the output (matching files with line snippets) and the preserved disk state.

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 searching decompiled code but does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when not to use. It lacks guidance on alternatives or prerequisites.

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