Search project symbols

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that it searches 'structurally' and returns 'exact file/symbol selectors' usable by sibling tools, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't describe output format specifics, but since an output schema exists, that's acceptable.

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?

One clear sentence covering both what it does and the key value proposition (returns selectors consumable by other AST tools). No wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage, output schema present, and clear annotations, the description is sufficient. It positions the tool's output as inputs to sibling AST tools, which is the key integration context. No missing critical information for agent invocation.

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 the schema documents all 6 parameters thoroughly on its own. The description adds the framing that returned selectors can feed other AST tools, but doesn't need to duplicate parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting and description adds marginal integration context.

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 has a specific verb+resource ('searches declarations') with a clear scope ('structurally') and states the output purpose (selectors for other AST tools). This distinguishes it from siblings like ast_list_files (file listing) and ast_get_outline (hierarchy), plus the output framing differentiates it from ast_find_references.

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 implies usage: it's the entry-point search tool producing selectors for downstream AST tools. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the reference to 'the other AST tools' and the structural search framing gives reasonable context for when this is appropriate.

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