search_symbols

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

The description discloses the return envelope (items sorted by match quality, totalCount, truncated, limit, byKind) and explains the substring match is case-insensitive, but it does not mention safety aspects (e.g., read-only, permission requirements) or whether a solution must be loaded, which is important given no annotations.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and return format, with no extraneous words. It could be slightly improved by splitting into two sentences for readability, but it remains concise.

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 fully explains the return envelope (a strength given no output schema), but it lacks context about the search scope (e.g., across all loaded solutions, within current solution) and prerequisites, which is needed for a search tool in a multi-solution environment.

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 schema covers both parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds value by clarifying that the limit defaults to 200 (schema says null) and that the query performs case-insensitive substring matching, providing more context than the schema alone.

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 it searches for types, methods, properties, and fields by name with case-insensitive substring matching, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a generic symbol search, not a specific reference or usage finder.

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 implicitly suggests using this tool for finding symbols by name, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like find_references or find_unused_symbols, and lacks any when-not-to-use advice.

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