redcon_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: scope='ranked' limits matches to task-relevant files, and scope='all' covers the whole repo. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what the output format is, or any other side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence provides useful information without redundancy or filler.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, scope behavior, and usage preference. It omits details on return format and the remaining parameters, but these are not critical for basic invocation. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a low-risk read-only operation.

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 low (33%). The description adds meaning to the 'scope' parameter by explaining the two enum values and clarifies that 'task' is used for ranked scope. It does not explain 'repo', 'top_k', or 'max_results', which remain undocumented, so compensation is incomplete.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a regex search with a specific resource (codebase) and differentiates it from raw grep. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling search tools like redcon_structural_search, which is a minor gap.

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?

It states a clear when-to-use: 'Prefer over raw grep on large repositories.' It also explains the scope parameter choices (ranked vs all), giving context for typical usage. It does not mention exclusions or alternative sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient for basic use.

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