find_symbols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return format ('file:line ranges'), the language scope, and glob traversal semantics, but says nothing about ranking, ordering, default query behavior, result caps, or what happens when the query is empty (the schema default).

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core capability ('find symbol definitions') is front-loaded before the glob detail. Every clause carries information the agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 existence of an output schema excuses the description from explaining return values, and the glob semantics are a genuine addition. But for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the omission of 'kinds' values, 'top_k' meaning, and explicit routing away from find_usages leaves the agent under-equipped.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does real work for 'include' by explaining root-only vs recursive glob behavior, and 'exact or partial' hints at 'query' behavior, but 'kinds' and 'top_k' are left entirely opaque 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Find exact or partial symbol definitions', and adds output shape ('file:line ranges') plus supported languages (Python, JS/TS, Rust). It implies the distinction from find_usages (definitions vs references) but never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 word 'definitions' implicitly signals when to use this over find_usages, and the glob note gives practical usage guidance for scoping. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, no mention of the alternatives, and no prerequisites for the agent to anchor on.

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