search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals fuzzy matching, de-prioritization of test/spec symbols, paging behavior with limit/offset, real match totals, and the cold-graph ranking limitation. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics or the exact result envelope, but it covers the key behaviors well.

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 conveys a lot in two sentences without being bloated. Slight duplication exists between 'function/method/type/file name' and 'symbol', but each clause adds useful context.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough for an agent to know what to expect: canonical IDs, file:line positions, paging, de-prioritization, and cold-graph behavior. It stops short of specifying the exact return structure or error/empty-match behavior, but those absences are not severe.

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 coverage is only 25%, and the description compensates by clarifying name as a fuzzy symbol search and by explaining how limit/offset function, including de-prioritized results and real match totals. The only other parameter, format, is already documented by the schema enum and description.

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 action: resolve a function/method/type/file name to canonical node id(s) with file:line. It also differentiates itself from blind-name search and concept-oriented sibling tools by emphasizing symbol teleportation once the name is known.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance by noting that on a cold graph you should prefer guards_top first and only use this tool when you already know the name. This helps the agent avoid using the tool in a suboptimal context.

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