search_repository_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails to do so. It says nothing about authentication/permission requirements, result ordering, pagination, rate limits, or what "bounded" actually constrains, leaving the agent to guess how the underlying search behaves.

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 short sentence is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action. But the trailing "using a bounded query" clause adds ambiguity rather than information, so it does not fully earn 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the tool still has 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations, no usage guidance, and no behavioral context. After removing the output-schema burden, the description remains too thin for a search tool with this many inputs.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never explains owner/repo/query semantics, and "bounded query" only loosely gestures at the limit parameter without defining its effect.

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 gives a clear verb and resource ("Search code in a repository"), which is enough to distinguish it from the PR-oriented siblings. However, the modifier "using a bounded query" is vague and unexplained — it is unclear whether "bounded" refers to result count (the limit param), query scope, or syntax constraints.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Nothing indicates what kind of query syntax is accepted or when a code search is appropriate versus the sibling PR-listing tools.

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