Search symbols

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 describes fuzzy search and lists indexed node types, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it lacks details about result format, pagination, or performance characteristics, which would enhance 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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant information. Every word adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 presence of sibling tools like find_component_relations and impact_of_change, the description sets appropriate context for a search tool. However, it lacks details about output format, sorting, or behavior when the query is empty. For a search tool with four parameters and no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 only 25%, meaning most parameters lack descriptions. The tool description does not explain how to use 'types', 'limit', or 'max_tokens'. For example, it does not clarify that 'max_tokens' sets a response token budget. This leaves the agent underinformed about parameter usage.

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 tool performs fuzzy search over indexed nodes (components, routes, etc.), and distinguishes itself from grep/find by explicitly stating 'Use instead of grep/find for 'where is X defined?'. This provides a specific verb-resource combination and differentiates from alternative tools.

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 explicitly suggests using this tool instead of grep/find for finding definitions. It implies a clear usage context. While it doesn't list exclusions or mention sibling tools, the context is adequate and the provided alternative is concrete.

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