search_in_repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that the tool searches text files and returns file/line/matching-text results, and the word 'text' implies non-text files are ignored. However, it does not explain match semantics, case sensitivity, regex support, max_results behavior, or path interpretation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It communicates the core operation and return format economically, earning its place without unnecessary detail.

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 presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, and this is a simple search tool with obvious read semantics. However, with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no usage guidance, the definition is only minimally viable and leaves several practical details for the agent to infer.

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 for the three parameters. It only loosely implies that 'query' is the search text; 'path' and 'max_results' receive no explanatory context. This is a partial but insufficient compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('text files'), and it defines the return shape as 'file, line, and matching text.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings list_files and read_file, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus list_files or read_file, and no exclusions are mentioned. The only implied context is that search is useful for finding text matches across files, but the description does not make this explicit.

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