symbol_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the auto-fresh behavior (files modified after last index are re-indexed automatically on read) and clarifies when explicit reindex is needed. This adds meaningful context beyond a simple search call, though it does not detail potential side effects or permissions.

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 compact: purpose, sibling routing, and freshness behavior in two sentences. Every clause adds value, and the information is front-loaded. 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?

The description fully prepares an agent to choose and invoke the tool: it explains the search semantics, distinguishes from related tools, covers the auto-fresh behavior, and clarifies reindex needs. With no output schema, return format is not specified, but the description is complete for a search tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already having a description. The AUTO-FRESH note reinforces the workspace_dir requirement ('reindex first if new') but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with 'Find symbol definitions by name (substring)', clearly stating the verb and resource. It then distinguishes from siblings by routing usages/references to 'references' and pre-edit impact to 'impact_analysis', making the specific purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Usages? references. Before edit? impact_analysis.' It also clarifies when reindex is needed via the AUTO-FRESH note, telling the agent that explicit reindex is only necessary for brand-new workspaces/files. This is direct and actionable.

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