find_symbol

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

The description discloses useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: exact matches are returned first, then substring matches, and each result includes kind, file:line, visibility, and entry-point status. Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds matching semantics without contradicting them.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary instruction and use case are front-loaded, followed by the essential behavioral and output details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple two-parameter lookup tool, the description is complete: it explains when to use it, what inputs mean, what output fields to expect, and the total match count behavior. With no output schema, describing the return shape in prose is sufficient here.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining matching precedence ('exactly first, then by substring') and emphasizing that the total match count is always exact even when results are limited. The limit parameter's default and behavior are already covered by the schema.

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: call this tool when you know part of a name and want to locate the symbol. It also explains the matching behavior and return fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling symbol-focused tools like definition_of, references_of, or callers_of.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('when you know part of a name but not where it lives') and names an alternative ('instead of grepping'). It does not state when-not-to-use relative to the sibling tools, so agents are left to infer that exact-definition or reference lookups would go elsewhere.

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