search_codebase

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

The description discloses the return format (dictionary with results, metadata, timing) and that the search operates on an indexed codebase. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or any rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 dedicated Args and Returns sections, each parameter is concisely explained, and the primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 query parameters and return structure well, but it omits the dependency on the codebase being indexed (likely via reindex_project). This is a meaningful gap given the sibling tools and the workflow context.

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?

The description provides detailed explanations for every parameter, including default values and an example for file_types. Since the input schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), this fully compensates and adds significant meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 the tool searches an indexed codebase for code snippets, a specific verb+resource combination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reindex_project or get_files.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_files or list_indexed_projects. It does not mention prerequisites such as the need to index the codebase first, nor does it offer exclusions or alternative tool suggestions.

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