semantic_code_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the output is 'compact symbol signatures', which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only (though it is implied), nor does it mention any limitations, performance characteristics, or underlying mechanisms (e.g., embeddings). This is minimal but not completely absent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It directly states the action and the result. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately brief for a tool whose core purpose is clear from its 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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no annotation, and no output schema. The description is too sparse to provide complete guidance for an agent. It does not explain the parameters, return format details, or when to use the tool. For a search tool with multiple optional filters and a specific output type, this level of completeness is clearly insufficient.

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 0% and the description contains no parameter information. The description does not explain what 'query' means beyond the tool's general purpose, nor does it define 'top_k', 'language', or 'project_path'. Since the schema provides no property descriptions either, the agent must infer all parameter semantics from the tool name alone, which is insufficient.

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 function: semantically searching code and returning compact symbol signatures. It specifies a verb ('search'), a resource ('code'), and a mode ('semantically'), which distinguishes it from keyword search. While it does not explicitly name sibling tools, the tool's focus on semantic code search sets it apart from web_search, query_local_docs, and expand_symbol.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., indexing), exclusions, or any context for choosing semantic_code_search over other search or code-related tools. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and generic description.

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