veto_semantic_search

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description goes beyond it by disclosing the retrieval mechanism: lexical keyword ranking, explicitly not a vector index. That sets accurate expectations about match quality and makes clear the tool returns raw ranked lines rather than synthesizing an answer. It does not describe the multi-turn agentic loop implied by agent_response, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, purpose and mechanism front-loaded, example query inline where it earns its place. No filler, though the em-dash aside about lexical ranking could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly steps in to say what comes back (ranked matches that the calling AI reads), which is the key thing an agent needs. The remaining gap is the agentic loop: the description never tells the agent that it may be prompted to pass an agent_response back, so a first-time caller is under-prepared for that step.

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 query and project_dir are already documented and the description adds nothing to them. The non-obvious agent_response parameter (the phase-2 loop payload) is not explained in the description at all, so there is no compensation for the one parameter the schema documents only thinly.

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 ("Code search") and the exact class of input it accepts (natural-language questions), with a concrete example query. The word "Code" distinguishes it from the many sibling retrieval tools, most notably veto_memory_search, without the agent needing to open the schema.

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 implies when to use it via "for natural-language questions" about code, but never states when not to use it nor names any alternative (e.g. veto_memory_search, veto_explain, veto_discover). Usage is inferable but not explicit, which is the definition of a 3.

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