Find symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral details: it returns 'IDs and spans' and restricts results to source-backed symbols, never arbitrary files. However, it does not address pagination, limit behavior, pattern semantics, or side effects, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 only two sentences with no filler, and the core scoping is front-loaded. It earns points for efficiency, though the brevity comes at the expense of deeper guidance.

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?

Given six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a list of close sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, usage guidance, and return-format details beyond 'IDs and spans,' making it barely adequate for reliable tool selection and 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, but it only clarifies the pattern parameter as a name or qualified-name fragment. The other five parameters, including kind, limit, profile, and max_tokens, are left entirely undocumented, and no information is given about valid kind values or how limit behaves.

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 a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('source-backed symbols'), and the matching criterion ('by name or qualified-name fragment'). It also adds a scoping contrast ('never arbitrary files'), which helps separate it from file-level search, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_source or get_symbol_context. The phrase 'source-backed symbols' implies symbol lookup rather than text search, but the agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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