search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (searching code/files across repositories) and mentions filtering capabilities, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. The description provides basic operational context but misses key behavioral details.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that each add value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and capabilities. While efficient, the third sentence could be slightly more structured by separating the filtering and optimization aspects more clearly.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does but lacks important completeness elements. It doesn't describe the return format, result structure, pagination behavior, or error handling. The description covers the 'what' but misses the 'what comes back' and operational constraints.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'filtering by project, repository, and query optimization' which aligns with parameters but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with specific verbs ('search for code or files') and resources ('across repositories'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like browse_repository or get_file_content. It explicitly mentions searching both file contents and filenames, providing a comprehensive scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to find specific code patterns, file names, or content within projects and repositories'), but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. It implies usage for search tasks but lacks explicit exclusions.

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