search_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It states what the tool searches, but does not explicitly mention that it is read-only or non-destructive. The verb 'search' implies a read operation, but this is not explicitly confirmed, and no side effects or limitations are disclosed.

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 very brief: one sentence plus a parameter argument. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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?

For a simple single-parameter search tool, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so return values are handled elsewhere. It lacks usage examples or explicit limitations, but is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the query parameter: 'The search query to find relevant context.' This adds meaning beyond the bare string type, though it is minimal and lacks examples or nuances about matching behavior.

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 explicitly states 'unified search' and specifies the resources: 'code structures (AST nodes)' and 'past project decisions'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (index_project, remember_decision) which are about writing/storing rather than searching.

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 context: it is the retrieval complement to index_project and remember_decision, as it searches across both types of data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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