telys_repo_search

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

The description adds significant behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses that every call re-runs telys_index_repo, that hits are always fresh, that each hit includes a source slice re-read from disk, and explicitly warns that the re-index writes to the store so the tool is not read-only. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure that helps an agent call safely, and it aligns with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: main action, freshness behavior, use-case guidance, requirements, failure modes, and side-effect warning. The information is dense but well-ordered, with the core purpose front-loaded before caveats.

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 and that no output schema exists, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: parameters, defaults, prerequisites, failure behavior, side effects, and a rough sense of the return payload ('each hit carries the exact source slice re-read from disk'). Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 query, top_k, and path_hint. The description restates these in prose ('Required: query. Optional: top_k (default 5) and path_hint') and adds the operational context of on-device embedding, but it does not materially extend the parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'Search the auto-indexed repo collection (default 'repo_symbols') with the on-device embedder.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by centering on repo-automated collection search and naming telys_index_repo as part of its operation, so an agent can separate it from telys_search or telys_search_lexical.

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?

It clearly scopes usage to 'map this codebase and search it' workflows and gives prerequisites and failure modes. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the workflow context plus the 'repo collection' framing is strong enough that an agent understands when this tool, rather than a generic search tool, is appropriate.

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