search_framework_symbols

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true which is consistent. The description adds no extra behavioral traits such as auth needs, rate limits, or output format. It sufficiently describes the read operation but no additional transparency beyond the purpose.

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 with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with verb and resource, followed by use cases and prerequisite. Highly efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description is sufficient for a search tool: it tells what it does, when to use it, and hints at output (list of symbols). Missing explicit return type but not critical.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description only adds context like 'Get exact names from list_technologies' which is helpful but minimal. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it browses and searches symbols within a specific Apple framework, uses specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by prescribing use after list_technologies.

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 recommends using after list_technologies and provides example use cases ('exploring framework APIs, finding all views/controllers/delegates'). It lacks direct exclusions but provides clear context.

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