crosspad_search_symbols

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds significant behavioral context: it skips vendored/generated trees by default (lvgl, managed_components, thorvg, TFT_eSPI, STM Drivers/Middlewares/CMSIS, build), explains substring matching semantics, and notes that passing include_vendored=true overrides the skip. These are genuinely useful behavioral traits beyond what annotations state.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and preference instruction, then behavior details. Efficient and waste-free. The parenthetical lists of excluded and included trees add slightly to length but are genuinely useful disambiguation.

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 read-only search tool with a rich input schema (6 params, most documented) and an output schema present, the description covers the key decision points: what it searches, what it skips by default, and how matching works. The substring-match nuance and vendored-toggle are covered. Slightly more could be said about return format, but the output schema partially covers that.

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 coverage is 67%, so the schema documents most params. The description adds value by explaining the default vendored-skip behavior tied to include_vendored, and clarifies what 'symbol definitions' means for the query. The kind enum and repos list are documented in schema, but the description's mention of classification semantics adds useful context.

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 searches for symbol DEFINITIONS (classes, functions, macros, enums, typedefs) across CrossPad repos via git grep, with a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from raw grep/git grep by filtering to definitions only, classifying kind, and aggregating across repos.

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?

Explicitly instructs PREFER THIS over raw grep or git grep, explaining why (filters to definitions, classifies kind, aggregates repos). Also describes substring matching behavior and when to use include_vendored=true to override the default vendored-tree skipping.

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