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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the match ranking ('exact > prefix > contains') and the lazy-indexing side effect on first use. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or auth, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then supporting detail about matching order and parameters. The long 'kind' value list is justified given the 0% schema coverage, though the definition is dense and sentence-fragment heavy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, match ranking, valid kinds, library targeting, and the indexing prerequisite. The gap is limited to undocumented 'limit' semantics and the absence of alternative-tool routing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it largely does: it enumerates all valid 'kind' values and explains 'library' format ('Tc2_System' or the book slug), plus implies the fragment semantics of 'query'. The 'limit' parameter remains undocumented, so it falls short of full compensation.

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 ('Find') and resource ('library symbols'), enumerating the symbol types (function blocks, functions, structs, enums, aliases, interfaces, GVLs) and scope ('in the indexed books'). This makes it distinguishable from a general search, but it never names or contrasts the sibling 'infosys_search' explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as infosys_search, infosys_declaration, or ads_list_symbols. The only contextual hint is the prerequisite 'Indexes the default libraries on first use if nothing is indexed', which implies but does not state a usage condition.

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