lookup_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns locations with details, optionally expands to sibling repos with include_org, and defaults repo_path to server's project directory. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the read-only nature is implied. Slightly missing potential edge cases.

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 concise with three paragraphs: first states purpose and output, second gives usage guidelines, third explains parameters. Every sentence adds value. No fluff.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains return format, parameter behaviors, and exclusion criteria. It could add pagination info or result limits, but it sufficiently covers typical use cases.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains that 'name' should be exact/near-exact, 'include_org' triggers sibling repo search, and 'repo_path' defaults to project directory. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description provides all contextual semantics.

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 returns all locations (definitions and calls) of a symbol with file, line, and type. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying exact or near-exact symbol names, contrasting with semantic_search_code for broad concepts.

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 explicitly instructs when to use (exact/near-exact symbol names) and when not to (broad concepts), and provides a specific alternative: semantic_search_code. This is exemplary guidance.

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