search_symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the use of AST and approximate name matching but does not mention performance characteristics, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only (implied but not stated). The description adds moderate value but leaves 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?

The description is highly concise, consisting of two clear sentences with no redundant information. Every phrase earns its place by conveying essential distinctions (AST vs text search) and scope (classes, functions, methods).

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 complexity of 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is brief. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or error behavior. While the tool is a search, more context about results would improve completeness.

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?

All 8 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds limited semantic value beyond 'approximate name' relating to the fuzzy parameter. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance 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 the verb 'search', the resource 'symbols', and the method 'by name using AST (not text search)'. It specifies the types of symbols found (classes, functions, methods) and distinguishes from text search, effectively differentiating it from sibling tools like search_code_pattern.

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 explicitly notes that the search uses AST and not text search, providing a clear distinction for when to use this tool versus a text-based alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tool names, missing the highest level of guidance.

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