search_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('JSON list of matching code locations with snippets') but does not mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. For a read-only search, it is adequate but lacks depth.

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 moderately sized with a clear structure: a title line, usage statement, parameter list (Args), and return description (Returns). It is efficiently written without superfluous content, though slightly verbose in the parameter section.

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 essential aspects of the tool: parameter meanings, default behaviors, and return type. Given the output schema exists (though not detailed) and the tool's complexity is low, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool 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%, but the description provides meaningful explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'repository slug', 'uses current repository context' for defaults). This adds significant value beyond the raw schema, clarifying defaults and usage.

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 specifies 'search for code patterns in a BitBucket repository', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It differentiates from sibling tools like search_repositories and search_memories by focusing on code content within a repository.

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 clearly states when to use the tool ('find specific code patterns, function names, or text') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools. The context of sibling tools offers implicit differentiation, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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