find_symbol

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 does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output schema implies, how results are ordered, or whether pagination/limits apply. The term 'real symbols' hints at filtering but is vague and unexplained.

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, concise sentence with no waste. However, it is under-specified, so it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is not well-structured for helping an agent decide on usage because it lacks essential context, making it more under-specification than effective conciseness.

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 has 3 parameters (one required), an output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the query syntax, the role of the library filter, the meaning of the limit, or what the return structure looks like. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly with the current information.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description does not mention any parameters (query, limit, library) or their meaning. An agent cannot infer what 'limit' or 'library' control from the text, so the parameter semantics are entirely absent.

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 states a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('installed/project KiCad libraries') with an object ('real symbols'). It is distinct from siblings like project_create or component_add, which are clearly different operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other search-like tools, so it lacks explicit 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when it is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or any conditions that would make another tool preferable. The description provides no context for usage beyond the basic action.

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