search_code

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

The description reveals the internal process: embedding with FastEmbed, retrieval from Turbovec, reranking with Cross-Encoder, and returning top_k chunks. This goes beyond a simple 'search' label. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe, and no annotations are provided to cover those aspects.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's workflow. No extraneous information.

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 the core search process but omits context about the workspace parameter (e.g., search is scoped to a workspace). Given the output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the workspace context is important for correct 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only mentions top_k's default value. The workspace_id and query parameters are not described, leaving ambiguity about their roles and constraints.

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/memory chunks using embedding, retrieval, and reranking. The verb 'search' and resource 'code/memory chunks' are specific. The sibling tools are about indexing, adding, status, and clearing, so this tool is clearly distinguished as the search tool.

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 usage for searching code/memory chunks but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like index_workspace or get_status. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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