ctx_search

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does this well by specifying the JSON output shapes for both symbol and file modes, explaining that query matching is case-insensitive substring matching, and noting the default limit. It stops short of describing result ordering, error behavior, or empty-result behavior, but the core operational behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 dense but well-structured, leading with the core action, then result shapes, then use cases, then alternatives, then matching semantics, then constraints. Every sentence adds distinct information, and the most important behavioral guidance is 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?

For a search tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete: it covers what the tool returns, when to use it vs alternatives, how query matching works, how to constrain results with kind and limit, and the file-mode behavior. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the symbol result shape {name, parent, kind, path, line, signature}, clarifying that files=true produces {path, language, size}, and framing the query as a way to find definitions or file paths. This supplements the parameter descriptions with meaningful output expectations.

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 identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: search the project's code graph for symbols or file paths and return JSON. It further differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming ctx_symbol for deep single-symbol detail and ctx_impact for dependency impact.

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 explicit usage context: use this to locate definitions before reading a file, or to find files by path fragment. It also names alternatives and when they are more appropriate, giving an agent direct routing guidance without needing to inspect sibling schemas.

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