redcon_structural_search

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: returns 'backend=unavailable' if ast-grep missing, skips comments/strings. Could mention read-only nature or result format, but current disclosure adds significant value beyond schema.

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?

Three tightly focused sentences. First sentence states core purpose and differentiation. Second gives example. Third covers prerequisites and fallback. No filler, each sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (AST search without output schema), description covers purpose, differentiation, prereqs, and error handling. Could specify result format or pagination, but it's sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke and what to expect.

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 only 25% (language only). Description compensates by explaining pattern parameter with examples of AST syntax and implying scope's default. However, max_results and scope are not elaborated, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches code by AST pattern using ast-grep, not regex. It distinguishes from regex-based siblings like redcon_search by emphasizing structural matching and skipping comments/strings. Example patterns like `class $NAME { $$$ }` make the purpose concrete.

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 tells when to use (AST pattern matching) vs when to fall back (if backend unavailable, use redcon_search). Also specifies prerequisites (ast-grep on PATH or installed). This provides clear guidance for the agent.

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