hound_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It states the tool returns matches with deep links, implying read-only search. It does not mention rate limits, authorization needs, or pagination behavior, though parameters hint at it. Adequate but not detailed.

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, concise sentence that wastes no words. It front-loads the core action and result, making it immediately understandable.

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 6 parameters and no output schema. The description broadly describes the return (matching files, lines, deep links) but lacks specifics on result structure or pagination handling. Satisfactory for a search tool given param descriptions, but could be more complete.

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 already covers all 6 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add significant new meaning beyond stating regex search and returns. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the semantic load.

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 tool name 'hound_search' and description clearly indicate it searches code across repositories using regex, returning matching files and lines with deep links. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'hound_file_context' (file details) and 'hound_repos' (repository listing).

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 using this tool to search code, provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer siblings or conditions under which not to use it. Minimal contextual advice beyond stating the search capability.

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