search_codebase

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

With no annotations, the description lacks critical behavioral details. It does not disclose side effects (likely read-only), auth needs, rate limits, or return format beyond 'raw file matches'. The 'atomic' qualifier is vague.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, including the provenance note. No wasted words.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return format, relevance score interpretation, parameter interactions, and behavioral context like whether the tool is expensive or has limits.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. No additional context is given for how parameters interact.

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 searches codebase files based on query patterns and returns raw file matches with relevance scores. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_file and search_tools by focusing on codebase file searching with relevance scoring.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for searching codebase files but does not mention when not to use, prerequisites, or alternative tools for different scenarios.

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