codebase_context_search

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

Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: auto-indexes on first use and auto-detects stale artifacts. However, it does not mention side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or error-handling behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Semantic search across context artifacts') and immediately provides key behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 there is no output schema and 5 parameters, the description adequately covers the main use case and indexing behavior. However, it lacks details about return format, RRF score interpretation, and the importance of 'projectPath'. This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters; it only states 'semantic search' but does not elaborate on how parameters like 'minScore' or 'artifactName' interact. The schema descriptions are sufficient on their own.

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 performs semantic search across context artifacts (database schemas, API specs, etc.). It specifies the resource and action, making the purpose easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'codebase_search' or 'codebase_context', so it falls short of a 5.

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 a usage hint ('Use this to find relevant infrastructure or domain knowledge') but does not give any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'codebase_search' or 'codebase_context'. There is no mention of when not to use it or explicit comparisons.

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