search_reusable_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden. It only states that the tool searches, without detailing any behavioral traits such as side effects, read-only nature, or what exactly is returned (e.g., function signatures vs. full bodies). This lack of disclosure reduces transparency.

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 sentence that front-loads the key action and context. It is concise and to the point, though a bit more detail could be added without harming conciseness.

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 search tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient. It specifies the languages and the intent. However, it lacks details on search behavior (e.g., case sensitivity, partial matching), but given the tool's simplicity, it's minimally adequate.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description adds no further semantics beyond the high-level purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate beyond 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's purpose: searching Java/JavaScript source code for reusable helper functions. The context 'before adding new code' adds a clear motivation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_api' or 'search_db_usage'.

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 when to use it: before writing new code to avoid duplication. It provides a clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives. Nonetheless, it guides usage effectively.

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