search_structures

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It explains that content_pattern provides structural context and leads to definitions, and that name/type/decorator find structures. This discloses key behavioral traits, though it omits details like recursion depth or authentication needs. Still, it gives sufficient insight for a search tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs usage guidance, parameter hints, and behavioral notes without redundancy. Every word adds value.

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 seven parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the critical aspects—purpose, usage, and main parameters—but lacks explanation for min_complexity and output_format. It is nearly complete but not exhaustive, which is suitable for an agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains content_pattern, name_pattern, type_filter, and has_decorator, adding meaning beyond the empty schema. However, it does not cover directory, output_format, or min_complexity, leaving gaps. This partial coverage earns a mid-range score.

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 across all file types with structural context, distinguishing itself from Grep. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'structures' with concrete details about what it finds (enclosing functions, classes, etc.), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 recommends it as the 'BEST FIRST CALL for targeted questions' and advises to 'USE INSTEAD of Grep,' providing clear context on when to use the tool versus an alternative. This helps an agent decide when to invoke it.

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