codegraph_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by revealing that unindexed codebases trigger background indexing, require a retry, and are non-blocking. This is a meaningful side effect beyond a simple 'search' statement. It does not cover edge cases like invalid inputs or error responses, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, each earning its place: what the tool does and returns, when to use it instead of grep, and what happens if the index is missing. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: result content, usage guidance, and the indexing/retry behavior. The schema handles the remaining parameter details. It is slightly incomplete in that it doesn't describe the response envelope, pagination, or limit behavior, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 high at 83%, so the structured schema already documents query, kind, path, team_id, and language. The description reinforces that query is a symbol name or pattern but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Search for code symbols by name.' It also states the result shape: matching functions, classes, methods, etc. with file paths and line numbers. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like codegraph_callers or codegraph_callees, which explore relationships rather than symbol names.

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 gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use this INSTEAD of grep when looking for function/class/method definitions.' This is strong concrete guidance for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related codegraph sibling tools such as codegraph_index, codegraph_list, or codegraph_impact.

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