nds_ghidra_search_symbols

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that only bounded exact/prefix/contains matching is allowed and explicitly rejects regex/arbitrary queries, which adds behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or free of side effects, though 'search' implies this.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then clarifies matching modes and exclusions, making every word earn its place.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides essential context but remains minimal. It clarifies purpose, scope, and matching constraints, but omits details about return values, pagination (limit/offset) behavior, and explicit read-only confirmation, leaving some gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, but the description compensates partially by explaining 'bounded exact, prefix, or contains matching' (mapping to match/limit) and 'one canonical ARM9 or ARM7 program' (mapping to processor). It does not detail the 'rom' parameter or query format constraints beyond 'no regex', leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'Ghidra/analyst symbols', specifying the scope as 'one canonical ARM9 or ARM7 program'. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling search tools like nds_search_pattern by emphasizing symbol lookup and exact/prefix/contains matching.

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 usage for searching symbol names within a single program, and it sets clear constraints (no regex, exact/prefix/contains). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as nds_search_pattern or nds_ghidra_list_references, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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