cortex_symdex_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses useful behavior beyond the schema: sub-150-microsecond lookup that avoids reading full files, which is read-only by implication. However, it says nothing about match semantics (exact vs fuzzy), result ordering, or what happens when nothing matches, so the disclosure is only partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The performance claim ('<150 microseconds without reading full files') is the one slightly promotional phrase, but it doubles as a behavioral hint, so it 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?

With no output schema and an undocumented second parameter, the description should compensate but does not: it omits return shape, match semantics, and any usage guidance. For a lookup tool in a large sibling set, this leaves the agent with meaningful 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 coverage is only 50%: 'query' is documented in the schema, but 'top_k' has no schema description and the description never mentions it, so its meaning (number of definitions returned?) is left entirely to inference. The description adds no parameter meaning at all.

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 (Locate) and resource (function, class, struct, or interface definitions) with a clear scope ('across the codebase'). It is distinguishable from the memory/snapshot siblings, though it never explicitly names or contrasts with the nearest sibling, cortex_prompt_lookup.

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 ('locate definitions') but gives no when-to-use context, no exclusions, and no alternative tool to prefer in other cases. An agent must infer entirely when this is the right call versus cortex_prompt_lookup or cortex_context_pack.

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