find_by_intent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are approximate ('likely names') and include both symbols and files to open. However, it does not disclose pagination, ranking, or how the intent is interpreted.

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 one short, front-loaded phrase with no filler or redundancy. It conveys the essence of the tool efficiently, though it is compact enough that some information is sacrificed for brevity.

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 nine parameters, no output schema, and only a read-only annotation, the description is far too sparse to fully guide an agent. It omits parameter semantics, result structure, pagination behavior, and how to shape a good intent query.

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 for the schema's lack of documentation. It only indirectly covers 'intent' via 'plain-language description' and leaves the other eight parameters including kind, repo, limit, cursor, and keywords entirely unexplained.

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 states the core function: mapping a plain-language description to likely symbols and files to open. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_symbol, which target exact symbol lookups. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, which slightly weakens clarity.

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 phrase 'plain-language description' implies this tool should be used when the user describes intent rather than naming an exact symbol. But it does not explicitly explain when to prefer find_by_intent over find_symbol or find_references, nor does it list exclusions or alternatives.

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