search_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'exact or fuzzy matching' but fails to describe the return format, case sensitivity, pagination, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a search 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?

At two sentences and 13 words, the description is very concise. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core action, but the second sentence is somewhat redundant and could be merged or removed.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of symbols with locations). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the response format. This is a significant gap.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal context ('exact or fuzzy matching') for the query parameter, but this does not significantly improve clarity 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 'Search indexed code symbols by name', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It mentions matching methods (exact or fuzzy) and usage context (finding definitions), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_definition'.

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 says 'Essential for finding definitions' but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'hybrid_search', 'search_code', or 'semantic_search'. No explicit guidance on 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.