search_code

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

The description discloses the use of ripgrep and the ability to limit search scope, adding value beyond the raw schema. However, it does not mention output format, read-only nature, or any limitations. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and only partially fulfills it.

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 compact and effective: two sentences that state purpose, capabilities, and a usage tip. It is front-loaded with the main action, with no unnecessary detail.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or any important behavior. It covers the core search operation and constraints, but omits return value details (e.g., file paths, snippets) and potential edge cases, leaving the agent with incomplete information for full usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a practical tip about Korean keywords, but does not significantly elaborate on parameter formats or provide examples beyond what the schema already includes. It reinforces optionality of project and file_pattern but adds little new semantic meaning.

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 searches code by keyword in registered projects, with specific capabilities like project restriction and file pattern filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file or list_projects, which serve different purposes.

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 use for keyword-based code search in registered projects, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_file_tree or read_file. It provides context (search scope, file patterns) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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