find_symbol

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: repository metadata is untrusted and must be inspected, not followed as instructions, which goes beyond the annotation hints.

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 deliver clear purpose and a security warning with no filler. Every sentence contributes value, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 description covers purpose and security but omits guidance on how to use kind/limit and does not describe the metadata structure. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value ambiguity, but parameter usage remains underspecified.

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?

The description references 'likely name' which maps to the required name parameter, but it does not explain the optional kind or limit parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the bare schema definitions.

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?

Clearly states the tool finds stored symbol metadata when a likely name is known, with a specific use case before modifying an implementation. This distinguishes it from search-like siblings by emphasizing exact-name 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?

Explicitly indicates when to use: when a likely name is known or before modifying an existing implementation. It does not mention explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context implies a direct lookup rather than a broad search.

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