cerebro_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses ranking behavior, inclusion of keyword/symbol matches, and that it returns paths. However, it does not mention index prerequisites, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only.

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 two sentences: first clearly states purpose, second adds behavioral details and output guidance. No superfluous words, front-loaded with core 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?

Given an output schema exists, the description adequately covers purpose, query behavior, and output relationship with cerebro_get. It could be more complete by mentioning index dependency or no-results behavior, but it is sufficient.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that the query parameter accepts natural language phrases or keywords/symbols. The limit parameter is not described, but its default value and type partially mitigate the gap.

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 finds relevant files and distinguishes it by mentioning semantic ranking and keyword/symbol matches. It also hints at its role in a two-step process with cerebro_get. However, it does not specify the types of files (e.g., code, docs) or contrast directly with other cerebro tools.

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 semantic or keyword file search and notes that results feed into cerebro_get. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or offer alternatives among the sibling tools like cerebro_calls or cerebro_endpoints.

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