search_for_feature

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are grouped into categories (entry points, configuration, tests, documentation) and that n_results is per-category, which is behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it omits behavior like whether results are ranked, whether it requires an index, or rate/scope 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a scannable bulleted list of what it finds, then compact Args/Returns sections. Slightly docstring-ish verbosity but every line adds information.

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 2-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the definition covers purpose, search targets, and both parameters adequately. The Returns section is somewhat redundant given the output schema, and index prerequisites are unstated, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: feature_name is clarified as accepting a 'name or description' (not just an identifier), and n_results is explained as 'number of results per category (default 10)', adding meaning beyond the bare 'N Results' schema title.

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 ('specialized search for understanding a feature') and enumerates the categories it returns (entry points, config files, tests, docs). This differentiates it from generic siblings like search_codebase, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.

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 phrase 'for understanding a feature' implies a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no comparison against the many competing search tools (search_codebase, search_codebase_advanced, search_with_dependencies, search_symbol). With ~50 siblings, the agent must infer selection.

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