ghidriff_search_functions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It implies a read-only search operation but does not disclose behavior such as return format, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing diff/job).

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 a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words. The core purpose is front-loaded and easily parsed. It could be more informative, but it is not verbose or rambling.

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?

The description names the core concept ('changed functions of a diff') and the schema covers parameter semantics, while an output schema exists. However, it lacks usage context, such as how the tool relates to diff lifecycle or when to choose job_id vs json_path, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), including details like query being a substring and json_path being an alternative to job_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('changed functions of a diff') and a method ('by name'). It clearly communicates the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like ghidriff_function_detail.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names and the schema.

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