redcon_search

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

With no annotations, the description adequately covers behavior: it explains that 'ranked' scope filters by relevance, while 'all' covers the whole repo. No disclosures about rate limits or performance, but sufficient for a search tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, every sentence adds value without redundancy. Extremely concise.

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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects (pattern, task, scope) and provides usage advice. Parameters like repo, top_k, max_results are self-explanatory but could use brief clarification.

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 only 33%, but description adds meaning by linking 'task' to 'ranked' scope and explaining default behavior. Adds value beyond the schema 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 clearly states 'Regex search over the repository' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes two scopes ('ranked' vs 'all'), differentiating it from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly advises to prefer this over raw grep, and explains when to use each scope ('ranked' for task-relevant files, 'all' for whole repo). Does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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