find_symbol

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavior: matching order (exact match first, then substring) and the limit constraint (1-20, default 10). It omits any auth/permission notes, but for a read-only lookup that is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then a behavioral rule, then example inputs, then a compact Args block. Every line carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

Both parameters are documented, the matching strategy is explained, and an output schema exists so return values need no elaboration. The only minor omission is behavior on zero matches or result ranking beyond substring, which is not critical for 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: `symbol` is defined as the API identifier to look up, and `limit` gains meaning plus bounds (1-20, default 10) that the schema's bare integer does not provide. The symbol definition is slightly thin, so not a full 5.

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+resource: finding usages/explanations of a Java/NeoForge API name, with concrete examples like "DeferredRegister" and "BlockEntity#saveAdditional". It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_docs, leaving the agent to infer the difference, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 "Good for ..." examples imply the appropriate query style, and "Exact match first, then substring" hints at when this tool is a fit. However, it never states when to prefer find_symbol over search_docs or when not to use it, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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