symbol_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It partially discloses timing behavior (background jobs, job_id) but omits core behavioral traits: whether it is read-only, side effects, or what happens on success. The timeout details are helpful but insufficient for complete transparency.

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 short but focuses disproportionately on execution timing, wasting space that should describe the tool's primary function. It is not concise in a helpful sense; it is concise to the point of omission.

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 9 parameters and a complex execution model (background jobs, timeouts), the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain normal return values (despite an output schema existing), prerequisites, or error handling. The agent lacks essential context for correct usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It only mentions timing parameters (expected_runtime_seconds, etc.) in passing, but fails to explain path, query, kind, limit, or on_timeout semantics. The agent receives no help beyond parameter names and types.

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 does not state what the tool does; it merely repeats the name 'symbol_search' and focuses on execution timing. The actual purpose (searching for symbols in code) is only implied by the name and parameters but never explicitly stated.

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 guidance on choosing timing parameters but does not indicate when to use this tool vs. siblings like search_text or alternatives. There is no context for when symbol_search is appropriate or when it should be avoided.

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