code-search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose a non-obvious behavior: the automatic exclusion of node_modules and .git. It also implies a read-only operation, though it does not state defaults or side-effect guarantees 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?

Single sentence with no redundant words; action, target, and exclusion are front-loaded and every phrase adds 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?

Output schema and fully described parameters cover invocation details; the description adds the crucial exclusion behavior. Missing is guidance on when to pick this over sibling tools, but that is a usage nuance rather than a completeness gap for a straightforward search tool.

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%, so baseline 3 applies. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already documents query, regex, maxResults, pathFilter, and caseSensitive adequately.

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 action ('regex or text searches') with a clear resource ('project files') and important scope constraints (excludes node_modules and .git), making its intent unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like fs-reader and project-topology.

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 implies usage for cross-file code search but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions vs alternatives such as fs-reader or git-observer. An agent can infer appropriate use from the wording but gets no direct routing help.

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