codebase_search

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears the full burden. It indicates that the tool returns relevant code chunks without modifying the codebase, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or mention any potential side effects or error conditions. This is fairly transparent but leaves some ambiguity.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a crucial usage condition. No unnecessary words. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the overall purpose and a key precondition. However, it does not describe the output structure (e.g., what fields are returned in code chunks) or any error handling. Given the complexity of the parameters, the description might benefit from more detail, but it covers the essential usage context.

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 covers all 7 parameters with detailed descriptions, including defaults and environment variable overrides for some. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it performs semantic search and returns code chunks matching a natural language query. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the precondition of indexing, making the purpose specific and clear.

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?

Explicitly states to only use after codebase_index is complete and recommends checking codebase_status first. This provides clear when-to-use conditions and a prerequisite check, which helps the agent avoid errors.

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