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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search scope ('across the entire indexed repository') and return content ('matches with signatures and summaries'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and return value. There is no wasted language, and every sentence earns its place by adding essential information.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and return content, but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output specifics. Without annotations or an output schema, more context on behavior and results would be beneficial for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the query matches 'symbol names, signatures, summaries, docstrings' (which is covered in the schema's query description) and mentioning 'returns matches,' but does not provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Search for symbols matching a query across the entire indexed repository.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('symbols'), and scope ('across the entire indexed repository'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_symbol' or 'get_symbols', which appear related.

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. It mentions returning 'matches with signatures and summaries,' but does not indicate when this search is preferred over sibling tools such as 'get_symbol' (likely for a specific symbol) or 'get_symbols' (possibly for all symbols). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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