search_build_content

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds useful behavioral notes: keyword-ranked (not semantic) results and the caveat to check coverage before interpreting empty results. It doesn't disclose pagination limits or result-count behaviour, which is a gap for a ranked 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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; purpose and return characteristics come first, operational hints follow. Efficient, though the final 'Reuse sufficient excerpts...' sentence is slightly vague.

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 3-param search tool with no output schema, the description conveys purpose, result shape, and a key caveat about empty results. However, with only 33% schema coverage and no output schema, more detail on limit behaviour, citation structure, or lexical matching rules would be needed to fully complete the picture.

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 33%, so the query parameter's lexical nature is partially documented in the schema ('Search is lexical, not semantic'). The description reinforces lexical ranking but adds no new parameter meaning for build_ids, limit, or the citation format. Baseline 3 given the partial schema coverage.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Find source excerpts within selected build IDs.' The scope ('within selected build IDs') and return ('keyword-ranked line windows and commit-pinned citations') are specific, distinguishing it somewhat from search_builds and fetch_content. No explicit sibling naming, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Provides implied context ('Reuse sufficient excerpts without fetching them again') which hints at when to reuse vs. call fetch_content, but never states when to use this over search_builds or fetch_content explicitly. Guidance is suggestive rather than explicit.

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