Search repository source code to find existing implementations before adding new abstractions, preventing duplicate patterns and ensuring consistent architecture.
Search source code for existing implementations before adding an abstraction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only search operation but does not state whether it is non-destructive, what code scope is searched, whether it has side effects, or what the result format looks like.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately compact, though it omits details that are needed elsewhere; still, for what it does say, the structure is efficient and scannable.
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 the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, this one-liner is not enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The agent knows the general purpose but not how to construct a valid query or interpret results, leaving a significant gap in actionable context.
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% and the description makes no mention of either parameter. The agent cannot infer what 'query' should contain (a term? regex? pattern name?) or what 'limit' controls, despite the schema only providing a type and numeric bounds.
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 states a clear verb ('Search'), a resource ('source code'), and a specific goal ('existing implementations before adding an abstraction'). It distinguishes itself from the review/understand sibling tools by emphasizing pre-abstraction discovery, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling it is not.
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 phrase 'before adding an abstraction' provides a clear situational context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools like aplomo_understand_repo, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.