find_symbolsFind source-backed symbols by name or qualified-name pattern; get IDs and spans instead of arbitrary files for token-budgeted code context.
Find source-backed symbols by name or qualified-name pattern. Returns IDs and spans, never arbitrary files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| pattern | Yes | ||
| profile | No | ||
| repo_id | Yes | ||
| max_tokens | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does add real behavioral context: results are "source-backed" and return "IDs and spans, never arbitrary files," which tells the agent the result shape and constraints. It omits read-only nature, pagination, and any failure/empty-result behavior for a 6-param tool.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return-value constraint. No wasted words, though the extreme brevity is part of why parameter detail is missing.
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 6-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is under-specified. It states return contents but leaves parameter meaning and usage boundaries to inference.
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 — but it only hints at the pattern parameter. kind, profile, limit, max_tokens, and repo_id are undocumented anywhere, leaving half the parameter surface opaque (e.g., what kind values are valid, what profile selects).
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?
"Find source-backed symbols by name or qualified-name pattern" gives a specific verb (find) and resource (symbols) plus the lookup key. It clearly distinguishes a symbol search from file-level siblings like search_source, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 when the tool is useful (name/qualified-name lookup) but offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing guidance among the many symbol-related siblings (inspect_symbol, get_symbol_context, search_source). An agent must infer the boundary itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.