Fuzzy-search C/C++ symbols by name via full-text matching to find matching entities in the compiler-verified knowledge graph.
按名称模糊搜索符号（FTS5 全文检索），如 search_entities('parse_*')。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the FTS5 mechanism and fuzzy matching, but says nothing about read-only status, result ordering, limit behavior, or any permission/rate-limit considerations.
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 a useful example and no wasted text. It immediately communicates the essential matching semantics.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a two-parameter search tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description is only minimally complete: query syntax is illustrated, but limit and result behavior are not addressed.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It partially explains the query parameter via the fuzzy/FTS5 example and wildcard syntax, but the limit parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 a specific verb and resource: fuzzy search for symbols by name, backed by FTS5 full-text search, with an example query pattern. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as list_entities, but the 'fuzzy by name' scope is reasonably distinguishable.
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?
Usage is implied by the name-based fuzzy search and the example wildcard pattern, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_entities or get_definition. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.