infosys_search_symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that by disclosing match precedence (exact > prefix > contains), that the search is offline, and that results will report when the index is still being built. It stops short of describing result shape or truncation behavior, but the output schema covers return values.

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 compact sentences/semicolon clauses, front-loaded with purpose then matching rules then parameter values. The long kind enumeration is dense but is the minimum needed to convey the accepted values, so nothing is wasted.

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 four-parameter read-only search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, matching semantics, filter vocabularies, and the offline/index-building edge case. It leaves only minor things unsaid, such as default limit behavior and what an empty result implies.

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 only 25%, with just `limit` described, so the description must compensate and does: it enumerates the accepted `kind` values exhaustively and gives `library` examples ('Tc2_System' or the book slug), plus the fragment-matching semantics of `query`. Minor gap: it does not clarify that null kind/library means no filtering.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: find library symbols (function blocks, functions, structs, enums, aliases, interfaces, GVLs) by name fragment in the local Help Viewer index. This is clear enough to separate it from generic doc search siblings like infosys_search, but the description never names an alternative tool, so the differentiation is implied rather than asserted.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource scope ('library symbols in the local Help Viewer index'), and the offline/index-building caveat is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus infosys_search, infosys_search_code, infosys_declaration, or proj_resolve_symbol, so the agent must infer routing.

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