Locate code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered structurally. The description adds the return-shape disclosure ('compact paths/symbols/ranges'), which is genuine value beyond annotations, but says nothing about result limits, ranking, or whether it searches the working tree versus history.

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?

It is a single compact clause with the return-shape information front-loaded, so there is no wasted padding. But the compression goes past conciseness into under-specification — both halves are fragments ('locator', 'known files can be read locally') that require the reader to supply the subject and the condition.

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 no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a genuinely ambiguous two-parameter query interface, the description should explain at least query form and repo_path behavior. It gestures at the return shape but leaves the interface underspecified for a tool whose main risk is calling it with a malformed 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 carries the full burden for 'query' and 'repo_path' and supplies nothing: no query syntax, no mention of whether repo_path scopes to a subdirectory or a different checkout. The baseline-3 rule applies only when coverage is high; here the gap is unaddressed.

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 phrase 'paths/symbols/ranges locator' conveys that this finds code locations and returns a compact result set, which is more specific than a bare tautology. But the verb is nominalized ('locator') and the scope (which repository, what kind of query) is never stated, so the agent cannot confidently distinguish it from siblings like find_related_files. The purpose is inferable but vague.

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?

'Known files can be read locally' implicitly routes the agent away from this tool when the file is already identified, which is a real when-not-to-use hint. However, no alternative tool is named, and there is no guidance on what conditions favor this over find_related_files or the context-preparation tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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