Search symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It clearly states that the tool supports fuzzy matching, pagination (via limit and offset), and returns paginated results. It does not disclose any destructive behavior, which is appropriate for a search tool. However, it does not mention rate limits or authentication requirements, which are common but not critical for a search function.

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 well-structured with a brief introductory sentence, a list of usage patterns, and a recommended workflow. It is concise but thorough, with each section serving a clear purpose. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is effective.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers search behavior, fuzzy matching, pagination, filtering by symbolType, and integration with the sibling tool. It is adequately complete for a search tool, though it could briefly mention that results are symbol IDs and names (likely in output schema).

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The tool description adds meaning by showing concrete examples of parameter combinations (e.g., query='auth', query='', symbolType='function') and explaining that an empty query returns all symbols. This enriches the semantic understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 purpose: 'Search for symbols by name, tags, or description with fuzzy matching support.' It identifies the action (search), resource (symbols), and method (fuzzy matching). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'describe-symbols', which is for retrieving details of already identified symbols.

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 provides multiple usage patterns showing how to use parameters like query, symbolType, and pagination. It also outlines a recommended workflow that integrates with describe-symbols. While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, the context provided is sufficient for an agent to determine appropriate usage.

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