find_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic operation. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what results are returned, any side effects, or constraints. This lack of detail leaves the agent guessing about behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. The ambiguity with 'ide_symbol_search' and the lack of usage guidance make the tool contextually incomplete for an agent to reliably select and invoke it.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain 'query' or 'workspaceId'. The names are somewhat self-explanatory given the tool's purpose, but the description adds no explicit meaning, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Find symbols using IDE index (LSP)' clearly identifies the action (find symbols) and the resource (IDE index/LSP), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'ide_symbol_search', which appears to serve a similar function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ide_symbol_search', 'search_code', or 'ide_find_references'. It only implies usage through the phrase 'using IDE index (LSP)', but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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