suggest_symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured list of symbols). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to handle the tool's behavior effectively.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly states the action and scope, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, which is ideal for concise tool descriptions.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., what a 'symbol suggestion' looks like), error conditions, or behavioral constraints, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool correctly in a broader context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('query' and 'maxResults') clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the query is for 'partial' input and specifying symbol types, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples that aren't already covered by the schema 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('symbol suggestions') with specific scope ('classes, methods, files'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'search_android_code', which might also involve code-related searches, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling tool selection.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_android_code' or 'list_projects'. It mentions the context ('partial query') but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and parameters alone.

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