pin.search_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: that it searches at HEAD specifically and that results are candidates, not final claims. This goes beyond annotations but could mention edge cases (e.g., behavior on large repos).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description could mention what is returned (e.g., list of matches or file paths), but the workflow context and candidate concept sufficiently frame the tool's role. It is complete for tool selection but slightly lacking in return-value transparency.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'query' or 'repository' parameters beyond their obvious meanings. It only implies query is a search term, but no format, scope, or default behavior is clarified. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 specific verb 'Find' with resource 'code candidates via git grep at HEAD', clearly distinguishing it from other tools like search_docs and the prove/verify family. It precisely states what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use the tool ('Never treat hits as final claims') and provides explicit alternatives: 'pin.prove then pin.verify (or prove_set/verify_set)'. This is clear guidance on the workflow relationship.

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