Find where a symbol is defined

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the search is heuristic, that the total count is always exact, and that limit/offset control printed results. This goes beyond a simple 'find definition' and gives useful expectations about accuracy and pagination.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds heuristic and pagination details. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the return format (path:line:col + kind) and key behaviors (heuristic, paging). Missing details like the 'kind' parameter and usage alternatives prevent a perfect score, but overall it's well-rounded for a lookup tool.

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 only 40%, with name, kind, and offset lacking descriptions. The description compensates for name (symbol lookup), limit/offset (paging semantics), and pathPrefix (scoping), but leaves 'kind' unexplained. It adds meaningful context but doesn't fully cover all parameters.

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 tool's function: 'Look up a symbol name in the index; return definition site(s) as path:line:col + kind.' This specifies the verb (look up), resource (symbol index), and output format, distinguishing it from siblings like find_references or search_code.

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 operational context (heuristic, paged, pathPrefix scope) but never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_symbols or find_references. No exclusions or trade-offs are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and purpose.

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