search_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (relevant code chunks with similarity scores), which compensates for the absent output schema, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, index-prerequisite behavior, or pagination limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 5-parameter search tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return values adequately. The main omission is the implicit prerequisite that the codebase has been indexed, which the agent must 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 100%: every parameter has a description with examples, enum values, ranges, and defaults (minScore default 0.7, maxResults default 10, language enum, regex pathPattern). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search the indexed codebase semantically using natural language'), which clearly distinguishes this retrieval tool from the write/management siblings like index_codebase and clear_index. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by 'semantically using natural language' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisite that the codebase must already be indexed, and no routing to alternatives (e.g., grep or a file-read tool). The agent must infer the context.

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