rms_code_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool searches a derived semantic index, returns specific fields, and explains that the projects parameter does not change active bind (read-only). It implies read-only nature but doesn't explicitly state no side effects, which is a minor gap.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the purpose. Each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy. It efficiently covers purpose, result fields, index behavior, and parameter nuances.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately covers purpose, edge cases (unindexed projects), and parameter interactions. However, it does not describe the output format in detail beyond listing fields, and lacks mention of pagination or ordering, which are minor omissions.

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 is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the interplay between 'project' and 'projects' parameters, the federation behavior, and the implication of unindexed projects. This provides behavioral context that the schema descriptions lack.

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 'Search only the derived semantic code index,' specifying the tool's unique function. It lists result fields and distinguishes from sibling tools like rms_search by emphasizing the 'derived semantic code index' and mentioning 'read-only cross-project code federation.'

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 provides context on when to use the tool (for semantic code search), mentions that the code index is optional and unindexed projects return empty results, and explains the behavior of project parameters and federation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like rms_search.

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