search_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about result count limits, ranking, whether the search is read-only against an index, latency, or how the project root is used (indexed vs scanned). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact Args block. The structure is efficient, with the only mild redundancy being the restatement of parameter names already visible in the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are described. However, with no annotations and no coverage of result limits, ranking, or index prerequisites, an agent still lacks enough context to predict what the call will do at scale.

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% — the properties carry only titles — so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains 'query' is a natural-language description and 'project_root' must be an absolute path. That is meaningful added detail for both required parameters, though it omits format examples or constraints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search for relevant code in a codebase') and adds the retrieval mechanism ('AI-powered semantic search'), which tells an agent this is not a literal/textual grep. No siblings exist to differentiate against, so it cannot reach 5 on that criterion.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when this is preferable to a conventional text or symbol search, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'semantic search' only implicitly hints at the right context.

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