search_repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It effectively discloses key behaviors: the scanning root directory (controlled by PG_ROOT), default repository root, and effects of parameters like max_results, context (line count for content), and depth (recursion depth). The 'content' mode's behavior of returning hit lines with context is transparent. A slight gap is the lack of explicit statement about non-destructive nature.

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 extremely concise, using only four sentences. The first sentence introduces the tool's purpose and modes, front-loading key information. Each subsequent sentence explains parameters efficiently without redundancy. Every 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 the tool has 5 parameters (2 defaults omitted from schema description), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but includes an output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the three modes, all parameters, and their effects. However, a missing detail is how the 'modules' mode output is structured (returns a tree?), which is important given no annotation for output schema contents. The output schema exists but isn't described.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond the schema. It successfully explains that 'mode' selects among three types (content, filename, modules), 'context' adds lines around hits in content mode, 'depth' controls recursion, 'max_results' limits total hits, and 'keyword' is the search term. This covers the purpose of each parameter, though 'keyword' could be clarified (e.g., regex vs exact).

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 the tool searches across local code repositories with three specific modes: content (hits and context), filename (fuzzy matching), and modules (service-module-layer structure). The verb 'search' along with the detailed mode differentiation provides a precise understanding of the tool's purpose.

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 description explains the three search modes and their intended use cases (content, filename, modules), providing clear guidance on when to use each. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when NOT to use this tool compared to siblings like 'obs_log_query' or 'archery_query', preventing a score of 5.

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