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 usefully reveals that each match contains a layer field and explains scope behavior for SKD, but it does not mention side effects, required prior unpacking, max_results truncation, or error behavior.

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 descripion is compact: three short, information-dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It avoids fluff, though the telegraphic parameter notes could be slightly better structured for readability.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations, the description adequately covers the central search semantics and the most nuanced parameters, but leaves gaps around result limiting, case sensitivity, and regex selection. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, so the overall completeness is acceptable but not thorough.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does a good job explaining the most complex parameters (layers values and empty=all; scope with query/all), while other parameters like pattern, dir_path, max_results, and case_sensitive are reasonably inferable from their names and defaults. The regex toggle is implied by 'подстроки/regex' but not explicitly mapped to the regex parameter.

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 states a specific action ('Поиск подстроки/regex') applied to a concrete resource ('текстовым слоям распакованного каталога'). This clearly distinguishes search_code from sibling read/list tools, since it scans across text layers and returns matches tagged with the layer.

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 provides clear context for when the tool is relevant—searching substring/regex patterns across unpacked catalog text layers—and gives parameter-level usage notes for layers and scope. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like read_module or list_objects, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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