osnova_thread

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description builds on top of that with real operational detail: grouping by enclosing definition, dependency-based ranking, a 10-matches-per-group cap, a 50-group default that `limit` raises, and the guarantee that totals and omission counts are exact. The completeness guarantee in particular tells the agent it can trust pagination boundaries, which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the most important information (search semantics first, caps and completeness second). Every clause earns its place: the parenthetical about `limit` and the omission-count guarantee both change how an agent would call or interpret the tool. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return shape, and it does so reasonably: groups, matches per group, default caps, and exact totals/omission counts. What is missing is the concrete structure of a returned group or match (fields, identifiers), but for a read-only search tool with fully documented parameters this is close to complete.

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 a baseline of 3 applies and the schema already documents pattern, fixed, in, limit, and ignoreCase. The description goes one step further by clarifying that `limit` raises the *group* cap rather than the per-group match count, resolving an ambiguity in the terse schema text. That is a modest but genuine addition beyond the structured fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource (text search with regex/literal matching over indexed text) and adds distinctive mechanics: results grouped by enclosing definition and ranked by dependents. That separates it from a generic search. It does not, however, name or contrast against any sibling tool (osnova_ground, osnova_outline, etc.), so the agent still must guess how it relates to the rest of the family.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for finding text occurrences in indexed code. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative tool for a different search style. For a search tool in a family of ten opaque siblings, more routing guidance would help.

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