search_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'search' (implying read-only) and the return type, but omits important details like whether a project must be open, rate limits, error handling, or the scope of installed libraries.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It could provide more details without losing conciseness, but it is not verbose.

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 description gives the basic purpose and output format, which is adequate for a simple search tool. However, it lacks context about query syntax, limit behavior, and whether results are ordered or paginated. Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained, but operational context is still sparse.

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%, meaning the description does not explain any parameters beyond the schema itself. 'Query' and 'limit' are not described in terms of syntax, constraints, or behavior, which is a significant gap for a tool with only 2 parameters.

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' and the resource 'installed KiCad symbol libraries,' specifying the output as 'Lib:Symbol ids.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_footprints and search_jlcpcb_parts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent has no context about use cases or when not to use it.

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