navigateToSymbolByName

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

Annotations show idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it performs a 'jump to definition', which implies navigation. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and pattern replacement. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It explains the action, scope (by name), and how it differs from the alternative two-step process.

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% for the single 'query' parameter, which already has a description. The tool description does not add further parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, hence baseline score of 3.

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 the verb ('Find and jump') and the resource ('symbol by name'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two-step pattern 'searchSymbols→goToDefinition', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 notes that it 'replaces searchSymbols→goToDefinition pattern', providing clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly list scenarios where it should not be used or mention alternatives, but the replacement hint is strong.

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