search_android_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Returns matching files and code snippets,' which gives basic output information, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and output. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to understand.

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 tool's complexity (search with multiple parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of results), error conditions, or behavioral traits like rate limits. For a search tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the search query syntax in more detail or clarifying the 'project' filter's impact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Search for code in Android source repositories (cs.android.com).' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('code in Android source repositories'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_file_content' (which retrieves specific file content) and 'list_projects' (which lists projects). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'suggest_symbols' (which might also involve searching), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'suggest_symbols' or 'get_file_content', nor does it specify scenarios where this search tool is preferred over others. The only implied usage is for searching code in Android repositories, but without explicit context or exclusions.

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