check_reuse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (matches with reuse/adapt/write_new decisions, house_helpers, project conventions) and adds a crucial caveat that 'write_new means none of these few matches fits, not that the repo lacks it,' warning of bounded results. It omits any note on permissions or scope selection, but for a read-style lookup this is solid disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then the parameters, then the return values. Sentences are dense but each carries meaning, including the important write_new caveat. Slightly packed with semicolons but no wasted prose.

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 appropriately explains return values, and it covers the primary `intent`/`code` usage. However, it omits any explanation of `repo` and how the search scope is determined, leaving a gap for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 description must compensate. It explains `intent` well with a concrete example and describes `code` as an optional draft, but the `repo` parameter is never mentioned anywhere in the description or schema, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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 implies a specific function: finding existing symbols matching an intended new helper/function before writing code. The return statement ('closest existing symbols, each with a decision: reuse | adapt | write_new') makes the operation concrete. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like check_dependency, but the resource and verb are clear enough.

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?

It states the trigger condition explicitly: 'Optional, before writing a general-purpose function or helper your own search didn't find.' This tells the agent when to invoke it (prior to authoring a helper, after a failed search) and signals it is optional. No explicit when-not or named alternatives, but the context is clear.

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