structural_search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does, not behavioral traits like performance, side effects, or limitations (e.g., 'search is case-sensitive' or 'may be slow on large repos'). Insufficient for a search tool.

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?

Single sentence with clear subject and action. No redundant words. Front-loaded with the key idea.

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?

No output schema, and the description does not explain what results look like (e.g., list of matches with locations). Given the tool's complexity and many siblings, more context would help the agent choose correctly.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 'query' and 'limit' already documented. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool performs a structural search across both symbol trees and code chunks, which is specific and distinguishes it from other search siblings like regex_search or semantic_search. The verb 'perform' and resource 'structural search across symbol trees and code chunks' are well-defined.

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?

Usage is implied (when structural matching syntax is needed) but no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling search tools. Lacks directive like 'instead of regex_search when pattern requires structure'.

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