search_godot_code_examples

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive behaviorni. The description adds that results carry language tag, URI, and heading, which gives the agent context about what to expect in results (though the output schema likely also documents this). It doesn't mention any side effects or limitations, but for a search tool that's fine. The annotation covers safety, so the description adds marginal value about result content.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance. Efficient and clear.

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?

The description covers purpose, what results contain, and when to use this tool vs the sibling. With output schema present and full schema coverage, this is complete for the agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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%, meaning all parameters (limit and query) have descriptions. The description itself doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides)Skip. So baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Search') and a precise resource ('runnable code examples extracted from the documentation'), and immediately differentiates from the sibling search tool by stating the intended use case (working code vs. explanations). This makes the tool's 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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('when working code is wanted') and when to use the alternative ('use search_godot_docs when an explanation is wanted'). This clearly guides the agent to choose between siblings.

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