nexus_find_symbols

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds context that the search is 'fuzzy' (tolerant of partial names) and spans the 'entire workspace.' However, it doesn't disclose additional traits like case sensitivity, ordering of results, or potential dependence on a prebuilt index (given the sibling nexus_index_build). So it adds some value but not deep behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word serves a purpose: 'fuzzy,' 'symbols,' 'across the entire workspace.' It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool is simple with schema covering most params and annotations covering safety, but there is no output schema and no mention of return format or indexing requirements. For a search tool, a complete description might note what to expect in results or whether an index is needed; these gaps keep it from being fully complete, yet the core purpose is captured adequately.

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 already describes 'name' and 'kind' with descriptive text, covering 67% of parameters. The description does not add details beyond that; 'fuzzy' implicitly reinforces partial matching for name, but limit and kind are not elaborated in the prose. Schema's built-in descriptions and constraints handle the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'search' and a clear resource 'symbols' with scope 'across the entire workspace.' It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like nexus_file_symbols (symbols in a file) and nexus_references (references to a symbol), and 'fuzzy' signals partial matching. No ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name any sibling tool for other scenarios. The implied use is finding any symbol by name workspace-wide, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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