lib_search_symbols

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

With the annotations already indicating read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds the search criteria (name, description, keywords) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like case sensitivity, wildcard support, or the structure of the returned matches. Since the output schema exists, this is acceptable but not enhanced beyond the basics.

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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It contains no redundant information and is well-structured, though it could be slightly more detailed without harming conciseness.

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 the tool has two parameters and one is undocumented, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the 'library_filter' parameter, and while the output schema exists, the lack of parameter guidance for a required query and an optional filter leaves the agent without full context for successful invocation.

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 partially explains the 'query' parameter by indicating it searches across name, description, or keywords, but the 'library_filter' parameter is entirely unexplained. This leaves a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb ('Search') applied to a resource ('symbol libraries') with explicit search dimensions ('by name, description, or keywords'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lib_search_components and lib_search_footprints, which target different resources.

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 implies usage for finding symbol libraries based on text criteria, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lib_search_components or lib_get_symbol_info. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, making the guidance only implicit.

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