Search Symbols

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, lowering the bar for additional disclosure. The description adds the useful scoping detail that searches span all indexed projects, but it does not mention search behavior like case sensitivity, result limitations, or whether indexing is required. This is acceptable but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the core action and scope, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple read-only search tool with one parameter and a clear scope, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit mention of return format or pagination, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity mean these are not critical gaps. Sibling differentiation would improve completeness, but the current text covers the essentials.

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 100% with the only parameter 'query' having a clear description ('Symbol name or partial name to search for'). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('symbols'), and scopes it to 'all indexed projects', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like semantic_code_search that imply a different search modality.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as semantic_code_search suggest related capabilities, but the description does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage context entirely to the reader.

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