search_symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'supports wildcards (* and ?)' which adds useful context about search capabilities, but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (only mentions maxResults default), error handling, or what happens when no results are found. The description is adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured in just two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and primary use case, the second provides important behavioral detail (wildcard support) and sibling differentiation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete but has gaps. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and some behavioral aspects, but doesn't address what the tool returns (no output schema means the description should ideally mention return format) or important constraints like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by mentioning wildcard support in the context of the query parameter ('Search keywords with wildcard support'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already documented in the schema descriptions for each parameter.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('search and discover symbols') and resource ('within the currently selected technology'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_documentation (for specific known symbols) and choose_technology/current_technology/discover_technologies (which handle technology selection rather than symbol search).

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for exploration and finding symbols by keywords' and 'For specific known symbols, use get_documentation instead.' This clearly defines when to use this tool versus alternatives, including both positive guidance (when to use) and negative guidance (when not to use).

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