code_intel_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose some behavioral traits: hybrid semantic/lexical retrieval, exact citations, match reasons, and reliability scoring. However it omits key operational facts such as whether the index must already exist, which repo/index is targeted by default, and whether results are bounded or truncated.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause adds information. It is efficient, though the terse packing of output traits without any usage context borders on under-specification.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented, the description is only partially complete. It hints at the return content (citations, match reasons, reliability) but leaves prerequisites and most parameter behavior unaddressed.

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 50%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all – it does not explain mode options (hybrid/dense/sparse), rerank, top_k limits, index_dir, or repo_path defaults. An agent must infer the effect of switching from hybrid to dense/sparse with no help.

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 specific verb and resource ("Search indexed code") and names the retrieval techniques (hybrid semantic + lexical) plus output traits, so the agent knows this is a code search tool. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like code_intel_symbol_graph or code_intel_read_file, so it stops short of a 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over code_intel_symbol_graph (symbol relations) or code_intel_read_file (direct reads), nor any preconditions such as needing the repository indexed first. Usage is only weakly implied by the verb "Search".

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