search_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the output is capped with format 'kind name @ file:line' and no bodies, but does not discuss read-only nature, authorization needs, or error behavior. Partial disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured: it states the purpose, output format, and usage advice in three compact segments. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description fails to explain several parameters (backend, maxResults, projectPath), return structure beyond a snippet, or error handling. Lacks completeness for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 40% (2 of 5 parameters described). The description adds useful context for 'q' and 'path' but ignores 'backend', 'maxResults', and 'projectPath', leaving them undocumented. Inadequate compensation for low schema coverage.

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 finds symbol declarations by name or substring using a semantic index, distinguishing it from grep. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'document_symbols' or 'concept_search', which also deal with symbols.

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?

It advises using this tool instead of grep/rg for locating symbols, but does not provide when-to-use vs. other navigation tools (e.g., goto_definition, find_references) or when not to use it. The guidance is present but limited.

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