search_code_skeletons

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 data source (code_skeleton_index), result ranking, and scoping, but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. As a read-only search tool, this 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 four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. It is concise and well-structured, with no redundant information. Could be slightly more compact, but overall effective.

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 100% schema coverage, an output schema exists, and the tool is a search, the description covers the main purpose, return type, and scoping. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it might benefit from mentioning the output schema explicitly.

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 baseline 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; it reiterates that root_path scopes to a module and mentions output fields, but does not clarify parameter formats or relationships. Schema already documents parameters fully.

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 performs semantic search over indexed source code skeletons, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'semantic_search' and 'search_project_artifacts' by focusing on code skeletons, and mentions returning specific fields (file path, line range, skeleton text).

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 code skeletons and mentions scoping with root_path, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'semantic_search' or 'search_project_artifacts'). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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