ide_search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. 'Full-text search' implies a read-only operation, but the description adds no details on result format, pagination, matching behavior, or potential limitations. It provides basic scope but no deeper behavioral context.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and avoids redundancy. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 is simple with only two parameters, and the description adequately covers the search scope. However, without parameter explanations or any note on result format, the description is not fully complete for invocation. It meets the minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 zero description coverage for its parameters, and the description itself does not mention 'query' or 'max_results'. The agent only sees types and a default, with no explanation of what the query should contain or how max_results controls results. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'full-text search' across specific resources (IDE device scripts, device-authoring guide, example projects). This verb+resource combo distinguishes it from sibling tools like ik_search, which likely targets language reference, and ide_examples, which may list examples.

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 context on what content is searched, so an agent can infer when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly reference alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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