Search code

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

Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the search algorithm (BM25-style), output structure (compact evidence packet), and dependency on a pre-built index. It does not discuss failure modes or idempotency, but for a code search tool this level of detail is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output description. Every part is essential, with zero filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format (compact evidence packet). It addresses the key prerequisite (index_repo). Missing details about side effects or read-only nature, but overall sufficient for a search tool with three parameters.

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 covers all three parameters (100% coverage), baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by mentioning 'BM25-style keyword score' which hints at how the query parameter is used, but it does not elaborate on 'root' or 'topK' beyond schema definitions.

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's action: searching a code chunk index using BM25-style keyword scoring. It specifies the return format (compact evidence packet with FILE/LINES/SCORE + snippet) and distinguishes itself from siblings like index_repo (precondition) and read_snippet (full file retrieval).

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 explicitly advises to call index_repo first if no index exists, providing a clear prerequisite. Although it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, the context from sibling tools and the description's focus on searching versus reading or testing implies appropriate usage.

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