search_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses read-only behavior implicitly, describes returned data, supports fuzzy/regex matching, and explains the context_lines preview feature. It does not mention result limits, ordering, or match-count behavior, but overall provides strong transparency 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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It includes useful examples without unnecessary fluff, and the filter guidance is clear and actionable.

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 tool with six parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description covers all major behavior and gives practical filter examples. It mentions return fields and preview behavior, though it omits result ordering, limits, and exact matching semantics. These are minor gaps for a search tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete usage examples for name, path_filter, and context_filter, and explaining how to use context_lines for previewing code. The extra examples and use-case guidance justify a 4.

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 searches for symbols across project files and lists the return values (file location, type, signature, exported status). It distinguishes itself from text-search tools by focusing on symbols rather than file content, but does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

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 gives concrete usage guidance with regex examples and explains when to use path_filter and context_filter to narrow results. It does not explicitly describe when to prefer this tool over siblings like search_in_project or search_in_file, but the intended use case is clear.

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