Search Symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying what fields are searched and that it returns symbol references directly usable in schematics. It does not contradict annotations, and the added context goes beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by searchable fields and a use-case hint. Every sentence carries distinct value; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is concise yet informative.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, which libraries it targets, what search criteria it supports, and what it returns. Combined with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the agent has sufficient information to select and invoke the tool correctly. The projectPath nuance is in the schema, so no gap remains.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description further enriches query semantics by listing the specific fields searched (symbol name, LCSC ID, description, manufacturer, MPN, category), which is not repeated in the schema. This gives the agent a better mental model of what the query parameter matches against.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search for symbols in local KiCAD symbol libraries.' It clearly lists multiple search dimensions (symbol name, LCSC ID, description, manufacturer, MPN, category) and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like search_footprints by focusing on symbols and local libraries. This fully distinguishes it from other search/list tools.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this to find components already in your local libraries (e.g., JLCPCB-KiCad-Library).' It provides clear context and even gives an example library. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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