summary_search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the tool as a search based on a pre-generated index, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state it has no side effects or require permissions. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Description is somewhat verbose but front-loaded with key information: preferred tool, use case, input format, output, and comparison. No superfluous sentences, though could be slightly tighter.

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 annotations or output schema, the description explains input, output, and why it's preferred. It lacks error handling or restrictions, but for a search tool this is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by clarifying the query parameter (Chinese business terms) and explaining the tool's behavior relative to the input, which goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 it searches code using Chinese business terms, returning function/component names, file paths, and descriptions. It distinguishes itself from general grep and codegraph_explore, and implicitly from siblings by being the primary search tool.

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?

Explicitly recommends calling this tool first for code search with Chinese terms. Compares favorably to grep and codegraph_explore but does not mention when to use siblings like prd_search or summary_generate. Still provides clear usage context.

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