prd_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns functions/components and file paths based on a pre-associated index, implying a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or behavior when no results are found.

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 relatively concise, being a single sentence that front-loads the usage trigger. It is efficient but could be structured into clearer segments (e.g., separating when to use from output description). No unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (functions/components and file paths) and the underlying mechanism (pre-associated index). It covers the basic usage scenario, but lacks details on pagination, error handling, or edge cases.

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 adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it elaborates on 'query' as '需求描述文字' (requirement description text) but does not provide further context for 'limit' or 'projectPath'. No significant added value.

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: to search for code implementations (functions/components) and file paths based on a requirement description. It gives specific trigger phrases like '需求实现' (requirement implementation) and distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly stating it must be used for such queries.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('当问题涉及...时，必须调用此工具'), providing clear context for invocation. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare with alternatives, though sibling names are provided in context.

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