search_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It details the filtering mechanism (only code_snippet type), the return payload (real code fragments with file location), and parameter constraints (k max 20, language filter). However, it stops short of describing error conditions, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only, which a search tool might safely assume.

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, using an Args/Returns format. Every sentence adds value: purpose, comparison, parameters, and return type. No redundant or filler language is present.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage context relative to siblings, all parameters, and return value shape. The existence of an output schema reduces need for describing return structure further. Minor gaps like potential errors or rate limits are not addressed, but for a read-only search tool this seems adequate.

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?

Although the JSON schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), the tool description compensates by explaining each parameter: query as natural language, k for result count with default and max, language as optional filter with examples (php, javascript, python, sql). This fully resolves parameter semantics.

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 opens with 'Busca código fuente indexado en Hipocampo (RAG)', clearly stating it searches indexed source code. It further distinguishes from sibling search_hipocampo by specifying it filters code_snippet memories and returns code fragments with file location, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly compares to search_hipocampo ('Similar a search_hipocampo pero...'), indicating this tool is for code-specific searches while the sibling handles broader memory types. It provides context on filtering behavior but does not offer explicit 'when not to use' scenarios, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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