Codebase Redundancy Check

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 usefully discloses that it searches an index and returns closest modules plus a recommendation, but says nothing about read-only nature, whether the index must be refreshed first (codebase_index_refresh exists), or how results are ranked.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Structure is good; it simply stops short of routing or constraint detail that could have earned the fifth point.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose and the shape of the output. The main gap is the undocumented query parameter and the unmentioned dependency on an up-to-date index.

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?

One undocumented parameter at 0% schema coverage. The description implies 'query' is the capability being sought, which gives minimal semantic grounding, but offers no format guidance (natural language vs. keywords) to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it checks whether the local codebase already covers a capability and reports the closest existing modules with a recommendation. This is meaningfully distinct from the generic codebase_search sibling, though the description never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'extend what exists rather than duplicating it,' which suggests running this before writing new modules. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many codebase_* siblings.

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