search_repo_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only (though implied), nor does it describe return format, pagination, search behavior, or any constraints—leaving the agent with minimal behavioral context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a search tool.

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 and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, result ordering, or any behavioral aspects needed to interpret results, leaving significant gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with examples. The description adds no additional semantic detail about parameters (e.g., query syntax, repository naming conventions) beyond what the schema provides, fitting the baseline of 3.

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 'Search' and the resource: code snippets, symbol definitions, and text within an NSTOK repository. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_knowledge or find_features, so an agent must infer when to prefer this tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_knowledge, find_features, or find_ui_components. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate or what alternatives exist.

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