search_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that it returns matches with specific fields and that it is a search operation, implying read-only behavior. It does not mention pagination, limit semantics, error handling, or performance characteristics, which would be useful 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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and return format, then provides the filter guidance and pointer to the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main expectations: what it searches, what it returns, and how filters work. It also points to get_symbol_source for body text. Missing details like pagination or limit behavior are minor given the simplicity of the 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains kind and language filters with concrete examples, but does not explain the query parameter (beyond substring matching) or the limit parameter's behavior. It adds value for two of four parameters but leaves the other two without added meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search indexed symbols by name substring') and explicitly lists the return fields (qualified name, kind, language, file path, line range). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_symbol_source by indicating that tool fetches exact body text, which clarifies its own scope.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use get_symbol_source instead, and explains how the kind and language filters work with examples. However, it does not mention other siblings like find_imports or get_file_outline, so it is not exhaustive but still clear about its primary use case.

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