search_js_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the basic function; it does not reveal whether the tool is read-only, requires project analysis, has performance implications, or returns live vs. cached results. This is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral expectations.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could potentially include more contextual structure without becoming verbose.

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 the presence of an output schema and four parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'usage' means, that 'project_name' is required, or how the search algorithm works (fuzzy, exact). With many sibling tools, more context is needed for proper selection.

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%, with each parameter having a description in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'JavaScript file/function usage and test cases that call them'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_java_usage (Java) and search_db_usage (database) due to the language-specific focus. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from global_search or search_test_case, which could overlap.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The single-sentence description does not mention when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools (e.g., global_search, search_test_case, search_java_usage). There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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