search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return format ('name, kind, file path with line ranges (file:start-end), and confidence [H/M/L]'), demonstrates handling of exact names, paths, and natural language, and explains the recommended follow-up action for retrieving source. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, query flexibility, output format, and usage guidance. No wasted words; front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description explains what results look like and how to retrieve source code. It covers the search query types and the near parameter is adequately described in the schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool effectively.

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 description adds rich meaning to the query parameter by illustrating exact names, file paths, and natural language queries. Since schema description coverage is only 50% (query lacks schema description), the description fully compensates by explaining query semantics in detail.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search the codebase for symbols, files, or concepts.' It provides concrete examples of acceptable query formats and explicitly positions itself as a replacement for grep/glob, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

Provides explicit usage priority: 'Use this FIRST — replaces grep and glob.' Also advises how to follow up: 'Use built-in Read with offset=line_start, limit=line_end-line_start to get source.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance.

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