search_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the capability to find files/functions/classes but does not disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, search indexing quirks, or result limits.

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 one line plus a short sentence, front-loaded, with no wasteful words.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides only a basic purpose and lacks guidance on pagination, return format, and usage restrictions. It is under-specified for a search tool.

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 coverage is 60%, so the schema documents query, sort, and order. The description does not add parameter information beyond what is in the schema, and page/per_page remain undocumented. The baseline is 3, but the description does not compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 code in GitHub repositories with a specific verb and resource, and gives examples of what can be found (files, functions, classes), distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_repositories and search_issues.

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 implies this tool is for code searches but does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives such as search_repositories or search_issues. No exclusions or contrasting guidance is provided.

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