search_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are references only (files with line ranges, not content) and that the index may be disabled — genuinely beyond the annotations — but says nothing about ranking, partial results, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose first, then the availability caveat, then the next-step call. Nothing repeats the name or title and nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly describes the return shape (files with line ranges) and the follow-up tools needed to consume results, plus the index-enabled prerequisite. Minor gaps remain around result count limits and what happens when nothing matches, but the essentials for a correct call are present.

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 coverage is 67% and the query parameter already carries a strong example ('retry a failed call with backoff'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning for limit or folder beyond their schema text; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Find code in the user's Mac projects by what it does,' which signals semantic code search rather than name matching. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling search_files to draw the contrast, so differentiation is inferable but not spelled out.

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?

Gives a real precondition ('if code search is turned on in DigUp') and routes the agent forward to read_passage(code=true) or read_file(code=true) for the returned ranges. It doesn't say when to prefer this over search_files, so the alternative-routing half of the guidance is missing.

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