find_symbols

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the matching order (exact, prefix, substring, fuzzy CamelCase) and filter semantics, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits limit behavior, result ordering, and any performance or permission notes.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed by matching strategy and filter details. Every phrase earns its place.

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 an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers the core search and filters, but lacks guidance on usage versus alternatives and omits `limit` semantics. For a search tool with no annotations, this is adequate but with clear gaps.

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. It clearly enumerates allowed `kind` values and explains `path` as a substring filter, and implies `query` is the name to search. The `limit` parameter (default 25) is not described at all, leaving one of four parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (definitions by name), and describes the matching strategy (exact, prefix, substring, fuzzy). However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like `symbol` or `grep`, which an agent would need to choose correctly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description implies it is for name-based symbol search but offers no alternatives or conditions for selecting it over other search tools like `grep` or `symbol`.

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