search

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the ranking behavior and output format, which is useful context beyond a bare statement. However, it omits search scope, case sensitivity, behavior on no matches, and any safety or permission details, leaving significant 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the key information and contains no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose and output shape.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, though the description does provide a format hint. Given the lack of annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain parameters and usage, but it remains minimally adequate 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 0%, so the schema provides no meaning for the two parameters. The description only implies that `query` is used for matching symbols and says nothing about the `limit` parameter's effect or the query syntax. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (ranked symbols) and resource (functions, classes, methods matching a query), with an output format example. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling `find_symbol`, which likely performs a similar function, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `find_symbol` or `get_context`, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description merely states what the tool returns, leaving usage entirely inferred.

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