search_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that the search is bounded (results capped) and that results are file-and-line evidence, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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. Every clause (bounded, supported source and configuration files, file-and-line evidence) carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must be self-sufficient, and it does convey the return shape. However, with three undocumented parameters and no explanation of supported file types or query semantics, it is only minimally complete for a search tool with this sibling set.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation at all. The description mentions query/repo_path only at the conceptual level and says nothing about max_results, query syntax, or what 'supported' files means, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (search) and resource (text across supported source and configuration files) and the output shape (file-and-line evidence). It implicitly distinguishes itself from symbol-oriented siblings like find_symbol by specifying 'text search', 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus find_symbol, search_logs, or repo_overview, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The word 'bounded' hints at limits but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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