search_repo_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It conveys only that this is a search over three doc sources; it says nothing about ranking, result shape, permissions, or how the default limit behaves.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical earns its place by enumerating the searchable sources. Slightly terse for the amount of undocumented behavior it must cover.

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 3-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient. The agent lacks guidance on the limit parameter, result structure, and what the three listed sources actually mean in terms of result provenance.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. 'Specific repo namespace' loosely maps to repo and 'full-text search' implies query, but the limit parameter (default 20) is never explained and no format or syntax hints are given for query or repo.

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 verb+resource ('Full-text search within a specific repo namespace') and clarifies scope with the parenthetical listing canonical docs, imported docs, and bus. It gives an agent enough to distinguish it from wiki-oriented siblings like search_wiki, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present. The description implies a repo-scoped search but does not tell the agent how to choose between this and search_wiki, query_wiki, or read_index.

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