search_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool searches for symbol occurrences and returns a dict with canonical symbols, which gives basic behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotations, this is minimal but not entirely absent.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, using bullet points for options. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary fluff. However, the formatting could be slightly more compact, and some sentences are a bit 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return value. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values further. It covers the essentials but could benefit from more behavioral context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant value by explaining 'pattern' as the search pattern and detailing 'options' with valid values like 'anchorStart', 'anchorEnd', etc., including their semantics. This goes beyond the schema's basic types, though it doesn't cover all parameter nuances like format constraints.

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 resource 'symbol occurrences matching a pattern', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_occurrences' or 'symbol_occurrences', which likely have overlapping functionality. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 like 'get_occurrences' or 'symbol_occurrences'. It mentions what the tool does but offers no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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