search_code

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it. It does not say whether pattern is a regex, glob, or literal substring, whether matching is case-sensitive, whether the assembly must first be loaded via load_assembly, or what the results look like. Only the implicit read-only nature of "search" is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding or redundancy. It is efficiently written, though its extreme brevity leaves gaps that a slightly longer description could cheaply close.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits prerequisites (is a loaded assembly required?), pattern syntax, result shape/sorting, and any guidance on the interplay between scope and pattern, leaving an agent with real ambiguity about correct invocation.

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 every parameter (assembly, pattern, scope, limit) is already documented in the schema, and the description's enumeration of searchable categories duplicates the scope parameter's listed values. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 gives a specific verb ("Search") and resource ("assembly") and enumerates what is searchable (types, methods, fields, string literals). That is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation, but it never differentiates itself from siblings such as pattern_scan, jar_search_bytecode, or find_references, so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for overlapping needs (e.g., pattern_scan vs jar_search). The description offers only what the tool does, not when it is the right choice.

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