roslyn:search_symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses wildcard support and pagination behavior (totalCount, hasMore, offset) but lacks details on performance, search scope, or return format. The description adds moderate value beyond the schema.

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 (4 sentences) and well-structured: starts with purpose, then wildcard details, then pagination. Every sentence is essential and adds value. No wasted words.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers main purpose and pagination but omits details on return fields (e.g., symbol kind, location) and search scope. Generally adequate but lacks output format clarity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by mentioning wildcard patterns and pagination concepts (totalCount, hasMore), but the schema already describes parameters well. No significant extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 types, methods, properties, etc. by name across the solution.' It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., find_references, get_symbol_info) by emphasizing name-based search with wildcard support and pagination.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (name-based symbol search with wildcards) and includes details on pagination and wildcard syntax. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like find_references or get_symbol_info, nor does it state when not to use it.

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