search_symbols

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

The description explains the output ('List of matching symbols with locations'), pagination support via offset, and a required prerequisite. Without annotations, it adequately conveys that this is a read-only query tool. However, it lacks details on error behavior or performance limits, which would be needed for full 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 concise and well-structured with clear sections (USAGE, OUTPUT, EXAMPLES, PAGINATION, IMPORTANT). Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and progressively adds details.

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 covers the core functionality, prerequisites, and pagination. It is missing details like error handling, empty results behavior, or rate limiting, but it still provides sufficient context for most use cases.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining glob patterns for 'query', listing valid values for 'kind' (class, interface, enum, method, field), and demonstrating usage in examples. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 function: 'Search for types, methods, fields by name pattern.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the examples show it searches across multiple symbol kinds, distinguishing it from more specific sibling tools like 'find_references' or 'find_implementations' which target different relationships.

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 usage examples and mentions a prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first'), but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no discussion of when not to use it or comparison to similarly named siblings, leaving the agent to infer from examples.

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