search_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. It discloses the matching modes but does not mention pagination behavior, result limits, whether the search is scoped to the current project, or how regex/fuzzy flags interact. For a search tool with no annotations, this is a meaningful gap.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and matching modes. It earns its place, though it could add a brief usage note without becoming bloated.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema. The description does not explain pagination parameters, the interaction between regex and fuzzy, or the search scope. For a search tool with siblings like search_semantic and find_files, more context is needed for correct invocation.

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 explains the core 'pattern' parameter's matching modes (literal, regex, fuzzy), which maps to the pattern, regex, and fuzzy fields. However, it does not explain page/page_size semantics or the default behavior when regex/fuzzy are false. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds some meaning but leaves several parameters undocumented.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('symbols and files') and distinguishes three matching modes (literal, regex, fuzzy). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search_semantic or find_files.

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 implies usage for symbol/file search with literal, regex, or fuzzy matching, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_semantic or find_files. The sibling names suggest alternatives, but the description does not state selection criteria.

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