search_symbols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only provides a high-level action. It does not disclose pattern syntax (regex, glob, substring), result format, pagination, or behavior when directory isn't indexed. This is a significant transparency gap for a search tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and scope.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. It omits critical context like pattern syntax, return payload expectations, prerequisite indexing, and how it differs from search_code. These gaps would force an agent to guess.

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?

The input schema already describes all 4 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'by name or pattern' marginally reinforces the query parameter but adds no new semantic insight beyond what the schema provides.

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's function with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('symbols in an indexed codebase'), listing example symbol types. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_code (which likely searches code content) and index_codebase (which creates the index).

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?

The description implies the codebase must be indexed but gives no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It does not reference sibling tools or mention when to prefer symbol search over code search, so usage context is only implied.

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