smart_code_search

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions combining ripgrep with CodeRank and that results are prioritized by code importance, but does not disclose details such as output format, error handling, performance implications, or whether it modifies any state (though search implies read-only). The transparency is minimal and leaves key behaviors unspecified.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence overview, an Args list with each parameter on its own line, and a Returns line. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it easy to scan for key information while remaining complete at a high level.

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 tool with six parameters, no output schema, and many similar siblings, the description is under-specified. It does not describe the structure of the returned results (e.g., file paths, line numbers, match snippets), how the working_directory relates to repo_path, default sorting behavior when rank_results is false, or behavior on invalid inputs. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about tool output and behaviors.

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?

The schema descriptions are empty (0% coverage), but the description adds meaningful information for most parameters, such as keyword 'supports regex', working_directory 'absolute path', and clear explanations for rank_results, context_lines, and max_results. However, repo_path remains vague (no clarity on relative vs absolute, or repo structure), so it does not fully 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?

The description clearly states the tool performs an enhanced code search combining ripgrep with CodeRank to prioritize important modules. This specific technique (CodeRank prioritization) distinguishes it from sibling tools like contextual_keyword_search, making its unique purpose evident.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling search and analysis tools, the description does not mention when CodeRank prioritization is beneficial or when a simpler search would be preferred, leaving the selection decision to the agent.

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