search_project_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the search exclusions, which is useful, but says nothing about result limits/caps, ordering, or whether the operation is read-only. For a tool with four parameters and no annotation cover, this is thin.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the exclusion constraint following. Every sentence earns its place, though it could fit one more clarifying clause without bloat.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should explain default result caps and what a match returns. It says nothing about return shape or the effect of maxMatches, leaving significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 all four parameters rely on the description, which only implicitly covers useRegex via 'regular-expression pattern'. maxMatches and caseSensitive are never mentioned, leaving them fully undocumented.

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 and resource: searching repository text files for literal or regex patterns, plus the scope of what is excluded. It's clearly distinguishable from siblings like read_project_file or list_project_files, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 exclusions ('does not search secrets, dependencies, or generated folders') give some negative scope, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus read_project_file or list_project_files. Usage must be inferred.

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