search_chromium_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search syntax but doesn't describe key behaviors such as rate limits, authentication needs, result format, pagination, or error handling. For a search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and method without any fluff. It's front-loaded with essential information and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, result limitations, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks critical context for effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly with examples and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or advanced usage tips. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Search for code in the Chromium source repository using Google's official Code Search syntax.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('code in the Chromium source repository'), and method ('using Google's official Code Search syntax'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_chromium_commits' or 'search_chromium_issues,' which reduces the score from 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'find_chromium_symbol' or 'search_chromium_commits,' nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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