find_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions returning a location and signature, but does not state behavior for missing symbols, multiple matches, exact versus fuzzy matching, case sensitivity, or supported languages.

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 with no redundant or filler content. Every phrase contributes to identifying the symbol definition and its signature.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values in detail. Still, for a lookup tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves important operational details such as matching semantics and no-result behavior unstated.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description adds useful meaning by saying the input can be a name or qualified name. However, it does not clarify matching rules, formatting examples, or whether partial names are accepted.

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 lookup purpose: finding where a function, class, or method is defined and returning its signature. It is clearly distinguishable from mutation tools such as add_note or reindex, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search or get_context.

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 explains what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives. With siblings such as search, get_context, callers, and callees present, an agent must infer whether find_symbol is for exact name lookup versus broader search or context retrieval.

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