search_code

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

No annotations are provided, so description bears full burden. It accurately states a read-only search operation returning results. However, it omits details like search limits, case-sensitivity behavior, or whether globs are optional. Adequate but minimal.

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: first states action and scope, second states return format. No redundant words, effectively front-loaded.

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 sibling list includes multiple search tools, the description lacks differentiation context. It doesn't explain what makes this tool the right choice for code content search vs. other approaches. No output schema, but return type is described. Adequate but incomplete for a multi-tool environment.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. Tool description echoes 'text string or regex pattern' but adds no new meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it searches repo source code for text or regex, and returns file paths, line numbers, and previews. This clearly distinguishes it from filename-based siblings like find_files or pattern checks like run_grep_checks.

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?

Description implies usage for content search but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings (e.g., find_files for file names, run_grep_checks for validation). No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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