semantic_identifier_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It effectively explains the internal mechanism ('embeddings over symbol signatures'), the ranking methodology, and the return structure ('line-numbered definition/call chains', 'ranked call sites'), though it omits side effects, rate limits, or caching behavior.

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?

Two information-dense sentences with zero fluff. The first establishes scope and return value; the second explains the ranking methodology. Technical terms are precisely chosen ('embeddings', 'symbol signatures', 'call chains').

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description adequately explains the return value structure (definition lines, ranked call sites, line-numbered chains) and search methodology. For a 6-parameter search tool, this covers the essential behavioral contract, though error handling or pagination details could strengthen it.

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description conceptually maps to parameters (e.g., 'semantic'/'keyword' to the weight parameters, identifier types to 'include_kinds') but does not add syntax details, constraints, or usage guidance beyond the schema definitions.

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 defines the operation ('Search semantic intent'), the specific resource ('identifier level'), and the exact entity types covered ('functions, methods, classes, variables'). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'semantic_code_search' by emphasizing identifier-level granularity versus broader code blocks.

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?

While the scope ('identifier level') implicitly suggests use cases, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'semantic_code_search' or other siblings, nor exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The agent must infer appropriateness from the resource description alone.

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