search_symbols_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the fuzzy matching behavior, which is valuable, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe the return format, or mention any potential side effects. Since 'search' implies a non-destructive operation, the description is not misleading, but it leaves important behavioral details unstated.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Search for symbols'), specifies the resource types, adds scope ('across workspace'), and includes the key behavioral detail ('fuzzy matching'). There is no redundancy or wasted words, making it highly concise and readable.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral context. It explains the input and matching, but does not describe the output format or how results are returned. Given the existence of sibling tools like search_files_code and get_document_symbols_code, it would be helpful to explicitly differentiate or provide guidance, but the description covers the core functionality 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'query' and 'maxResults' have descriptive comments in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. The 'fuzzy matching' note relates to the tool's behavior rather than to the parameters themselves, so the schema adequately carries the parameter semantics.

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 purpose: 'Search for symbols (functions, classes, variables) across workspace'. It uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('symbols'), and adds scope ('across workspace'). The mention of 'fuzzy matching' further distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_files_code (which searches file contents) and get_symbol_definition_code (which retrieves definitions).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to search for symbol names workspace-wide with fuzzy matching. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, such as noting that search_files_code should be used for content searches or get_symbol_definition_code for exact definitions. The context is clear enough to infer common use cases, but it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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