localSearchCode

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds gotchas like lineHint being 1-indexed, filesOnly for fast discovery, and type filter efficiency, providing additional behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (<when>, <fromTool>, <toTool>, <gotchas>, <examples>), front-loaded with a summary. Each section is concise and serves a distinct purpose 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?

Given the tool's complexity (many parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context with examples, workflows, and gotchas. It covers usage beyond the schema, making it complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds value through examples and gotchas (e.g., filesOnly, type filter), but does not elaborate on each parameter since the schema already does. Baseline 3 is elevated to 4 due to practical usage tips.

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 it searches code patterns using ripgrep, listing specific use cases like function finding, symbol lookup, and pattern matching. It distinguishes from sibling tools like localFindFiles and localViewStructure by referencing them in the <fromTool> and <toTool> sections.

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 <when> and <toTool> sections provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool and how it fits into workflows with LSP or alternative tools (e.g., lspGotoDefinition, lspFindReferences). It also suggests self-refining patterns.

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