code_search_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly implies a read-only retrieval of guidance, but does not disclose output format, size, or any side effects. For a simple guide tool, the lack of explicit behavioral detail is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the target resource with zero redundancy. Every word contributes to clarity, making it highly efficient.

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 parameterless guide with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and content. It could explicitly state that the returned instructions should be followed before using code_search, but the sibling context and the description's phrasing make this largely self-evident, so the gap is minimal.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Since the tool takes no inputs, the description need not add parameter-specific meaning; the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies without deduction.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and a clear resource ('best practices and usage instructions for AI agents on code_search'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like code_search (which performs the search), code_search_status, and code_search_reindex, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states it provides guidance on how and when to use code_search, which implicitly tells an agent to use this tool when needing to decide on code_search usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state 'use this before calling code_search', leaving that inference to the agent.

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