locate_in_code

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds a valuable behavioral constraint: repo_root is never inferred and is required when the bundle lacks candidates. This goes beyond the schema/annotations and alerts the agent to a potential failure mode.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, with no fluff. The information about repo_root is essential and placed prominently.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the critical condition. It doesn't explain return structure, but the output schema handles that; some context around 'bundle' is still absent.

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 clearly explains the semantics and conditional requirement of repo_root, but leaves report_id and 'bundle' undefined, relying on contextual inference.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('code candidates') with an explicit conditional ('or re-ground now'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling report/video/action tools. The title 'Locate suspect code' reinforces the purpose.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided; however, the core statement implies the tool is for retrieving or creating code candidates. The repo_root conditional offers parameter-level guidance but not tool-selection guidance.

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