kicad.search_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether the search supports wildcards/regex, case sensitivity behavior, what happens when no results are found, or whether this operation is read-only (though implied by 'search'). With an output schema present, return value documentation is handled elsewhere, but execution behavior remains opaque.

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 consists of two efficiently structured sentences: the first front-loaded with the core purpose, the second providing a concrete usage example. No redundant or filler text is present; every word 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?

Given that an output schema exists (handling return value documentation) and the tool performs a standard search operation, the description provides minimal viable context. However, with three parameters and zero schema coverage, the lack of parameter semantics documentation leaves a significant gap. Adequate but incomplete.

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% (titles only, no descriptions). The description includes an example showing query and limit usage but does not explain the 'library' parameter's function (filtering by specific library name?), the query syntax (substring vs. exact match), or valid ranges for limit. The example alone is insufficient to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Search[es] for symbols (components) in KiCad libraries,' providing specific verb (search), resource (symbols/components), and scope (libraries). The parenthetical clarification of 'components' helps distinguish from footprints, though it could more explicitly differentiate from sibling list_components (which likely searches the current schematic vs. libraries).

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 a concrete example showing syntax (query='STM32', limit=10), but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_symbol_info (for specific symbol details) or search_footprints. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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