search_symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral transparency. It mentions 'sub-millisecond results' and 'conceptual intent searches', but does not disclose limitations such as potential partial matches, ranking behavior, or whether exact symbol resolution guarantees uniqueness. The description is adequate but could be more transparent about what happens when no results are found or how the search treats ambiguous queries.

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 concise, under 60 words, and front-loads the key differentiator (symbol-first, sub-millisecond). Every sentence adds value, and it avoids redundancy with the schema. It is well-structured for quick scanning.

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 annotations, the description covers the tool's main behavior and query flexibility. The output schema is absent, but the description implicitly explains what results contain (symbols) and mentions scoping options. It doesn't cover error scenarios or edge cases, but for a search tool, this is acceptable. The key aspects are covered, making it complete for most use cases.

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 description repeats some parameter semantics (framework scoping via framework or choose_technology) but the input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds a little value by explaining the query types (exact, wildcard, conceptual) and mentioning default maxResults, but does not compensate for any gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: searching Apple developer documentation with symbol-first results. It distinguishes itself from siblings like semantic_search by emphasizing symbol-first and sub-millisecond results, and mentions scoping options that align with sibling tools like choose_technology.

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 explains when to use the tool (for symbol searches) and hints at alternatives like semantic_search for conceptual intent, but it does not explicitly exclude other tools or provide clear 'when not to use' guidance. It implies usage through the query types (exact symbol, wildcard, conceptual), which is helpful but not fully explicit.

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