Search Identifiers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions AST analysis and returning definitions/references, but does not disclose performance characteristics, failure modes, supported languages, or prerequisites. The behavioral transparency is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 (two clauses) that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is an exemplary model of 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and a sibling tool, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return value structure, limitations, or edge cases. It is adequate for a straightforward search tool but leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand invocation behavior.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context that the search is for 'code identifiers' and returns 'definitions and references', but this does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'Search', resource 'code identifiers', and method 'Tree-sitter AST analysis'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'repo_map' by focusing on identifiers rather than repository structure. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 identifiers but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'repo_map'. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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