search

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the scope of the search (imports, exports, functions, classes, types, routes) but does not state what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, how matches are matched, or any limits. For a search tool without an output schema, this leaves key behavior undisclosed.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and then expands with the search scope. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter search tool, the description is mostly complete: it states what is searched and the intended query. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the missing information about result format (e.g., locations, matches, counts) leaves a notable gap for an agent deciding whether the tool fits its task.

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 the query parameter is already documented as 'Nom de la fonction, du type, du hook ou de la route a chercher'. The description reinforces this by adding search targets like imports/exports/classes, but it does not add fundamentally new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Recherche dans la carte') and a concrete user question ('qui utilise cette fonction/type/hook ?'), then enumerates the search targets (imports, exports, fonctions, classes, types, routes). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like dependencies or graph: it is a usage/reference lookup tool.

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 implies the tool is for finding who uses a given symbol by name, which gives a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings such as dependencies, impact, or graph, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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