map_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the lookup is name-based and possibly stale, indicating it may not reflect the latest state. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or any other side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences, immediately stating the purpose and usage context. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return type (node IDs) and how to use them (with map_neighbors and resolve). It also notes the staleness caveat. The sibling list provides further context. It is adequately complete for a simple 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 50% (query and tokenBudget have descriptions; kind and limit do not). The description adds that the search is by name and returns node IDs, which indirectly explains query's purpose but does not elaborate on kind or limit. It adds marginal value beyond the schema for parameters.

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 performs fuzzy symbol lookup over a static map, returning node IDs for use with map_neighbors and resolve. It distinguishes itself from siblings like nav_workspaceSymbols by noting it is name-based, cheap, and possibly stale.

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 explicitly says when to use: when you don't have a location yet. It also provides an alternative: for ground truth use nav_workspaceSymbols, which queries the live language server. This gives clear context and exclusions.

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