repo_find_symbol

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

The description asserts 'Read-only, deterministic, zero side effects', but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, i.e. the tool is not guaranteed side-effect-free. That is a direct contradiction of structured metadata, so the behavioral claims cannot be trusted as written. Other disclosed traits (matching precedence, secret-file exclusion, ambiguity handling) are genuinely useful but are undercut by the conflict.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then matching semantics, then when/when-not, then output shape. Dense but each block earns its place; the matching-precedence sentence is long but load-bearing for disambiguation behavior.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields ({node_id, name, qualname, kind, path, start_line, end_line, lang}). Ambiguity handling, matching precedence and secret-file exclusion are covered, leaving little an agent needs that is missing — apart from the unresolved read-only conflict.

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 100%, so kind, name, limit and path_prefix are already documented with types, defaults and bounds. The description adds no per-parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('look up a symbol or file's node_id by name') and immediately names the consumers (repo_neighbours, repo_read, repo_path_between, repo_blast_radius), so the agent can place it precisely in the tool graph.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' (name already known from a traceback/grep/review comment, want node_id with no repo_search round trip) and 'When NOT to use' (open-ended text search → repo_search; repo layout → repo_map). Alternatives and the selecting condition are both spelled out.

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