Search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers meaningful context: automatic fallback to live grep, stale-index warning semantics, background reindex triggering, and results still returning. It does not cover read-only/safety explicitly, but for a search tool this is substantial disclosure.

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?

Three dense, purposeful sentences with no filler. The primary use case and preference guidance are front-loaded, followed by behavior and warning semantics — every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers when to use the tool, fallback behavior, and warning semantics, and an output schema exists to document return values. It is slightly short on how mode/rerank/grep parameters interact with the described fallback, but overall an agent has enough context to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds contextual value by mentioning 'hybrid results', 'code_snippet', and 'warning', but it does not explain parameter meanings beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific use case ('where is/how does/find code question') and names the preferred alternative (Grep/Glob), making the tool's purpose and differentiation clear. It also signals that results are often self-sufficient via 'code_snippet', so an agent knows what this tool is for and what it returns.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool versus Grep/Glob and notes the automatic live-grep fallback. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like find_symbol or graph, but the stated query-type guidance is strong enough to route most calls correctly.

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