search_symbols

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the substring matching behavior and that the return value is lib_ids. However, it does not cover behavior around optional parameters (library, project_dir), limit, case sensitivity, or empty results.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with examples. Every word adds value; no filler.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too short to be complete. It omits the role of library and project_dir filters, the default limit, and any output details beyond lib_ids.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only explains the query parameter indirectly via examples and 'name substring', but leaves limit, library, and project_dir unexplained, so an agent cannot infer their purpose or valid values.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches symbol libraries by name substring with concrete examples ('ESP32-S3', 'LM358'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_symbol_libraries by focusing on search, and names downstream consumers of the returned lib_ids.

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?

It implies usage context—search when you need a lib_id to pass to get_symbol_pins or create_pinout_schematic—but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. No mention of when to use list_symbol_libraries instead.

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