Ask about the indexed codebase

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context about grounding on pgvector retrieval and returning citations, which is helpful. However, the description does not fully clarify the behavioral implications of the 'readOnlyHint' being false; it implies a read operation, which is a minor gap but not a contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes essential details (grounding, citations, prerequisites) without waste. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, return format, and prerequisites. It does not explain the optional parameters (thread_id, file_path, symbol_name) but the schema handles that. Overall complete for the complexity level.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It mentions 'plain-English question', which aligns with the 'question' field, but no additional parameter details.

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 action ('Ask a plain-English question') and the resource ('the connected repo'), using specific verbs. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_codebase' by mentioning 'returns an answer with file:line citations' and 'Grounds on pgvector retrieval', which is unique.

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 specifies prerequisites ('Requires codebase indexing enabled and an Anthropic or OpenAI BYOK key') but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or suggest specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'search_codebase' for raw search).

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