search_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats what the name implies and adds 'natural language,' failing to mention whether the operation is read-only, requires an indexed codebase, how results are ranked, or any side effects. The schema does add scoring information, but the description itself offers no behavioral transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise while still conveying the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 is a search operation with a full input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters or return values. However, it lacks critical contextual details such as whether indexing is required, how this search differs from search_file, or any limitations. This makes it minimally viable but not fully complete for selecting among context-related siblings.

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%, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including an example for 'query' and clarification for 'score_threshold'. The description adds no parameter-level information, but since the schema is exhaustive, a baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('the codebase') and specifies the mode ('using natural language'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_file, which likely searches by file name/path. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast with alternatives.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_file or index_codebase. The only context is 'natural language,' which implies this is for semantic search, but there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., indexing) or situations where another tool would be preferable.

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