search_symbols

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

No annotations exist, so the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a dual execution path (index DB first, then graph fallback), which is valuable but does not cover side effects, safety (presumably read-only), or failure modes.

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 extremely short (one sentence) but at the cost of omitting essential parameter and behavioral details. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter coverage in the description, the tool is severely incomplete. The agent lacks understanding of what symbols are, how parameters work, what the output looks like, and fallback behavior details.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (query, limit, context_unit_id). The agent receives no semantic help beyond the schema titles.

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 action 'search' and the resource 'symbols', and provides a specific implementation detail (index DB fallback to graph). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are all about architecture analysis, not symbol search.

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?

No guidance on when to use or not use this tool. It only mentions a technical fallback mechanism but does not suggest alternatives or provide usage conditions. The sibling tools are different domains, so no explicit comparison is offered.

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