search_symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds real context by disclosing the return contents and the efficiency trait (no full text scan), but says nothing about indexing prerequisites, staleness, or result limits even though max_matches exists.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the return shape and the efficiency differentiator. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed and the description correctly skips it. But with six undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage, an agent has no basis for setting sub_dir, path_glob, or max_matches, leaving a meaningful gap.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full compensating burden and largely fails. Only the symbol_type dimension is loosely hinted at via 'function and class declarations'; name, sub_dir, path_glob, workspace, and max_matches are never mentioned.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (find function/class declarations and definitions) and scopes it to named languages, which distinguishes it from the generic `search`/`grep_search` siblings. It does not name a specific sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clause 'without full text scanning' implies this is the cheaper alternative to a text-search tool, which is an implied when-to-use. However, it never names grep_search, deep_search, or find_symbol_references, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites for choosing between them.

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