search_symbols

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the return format ('path:line evidence') and the valid kind vocabulary, but says nothing about limit behavior, repo scoping defaults, or match ranking. Adequate but thin for an annotation-free tool.

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?

Three terse fragments, purpose front-loaded, no filler. Slightly clipped at the cost of completeness, but every element is informative.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, so the description needn't explain them. Still missing repo/limit semantics and disambiguation from sibling search/lookup tools.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates for the important enum-like kind parameter ('module|class|interface|function|method'). repo and limit are left to name inference with no guidance on defaults or scoping.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Fuzzy search symbol names') and hints at return format. An agent can distinguish it from a single-symbol lookup like get_symbol, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance and no alternatives named. The word 'fuzzy' implies exploratory use, but the agent must infer when to pick this over get_symbol or repo_overview.

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