definition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains position indexing (1-based) and suggests the needle parameter, but it does not describe return values, failure behavior, or path/workspace expectations.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes either to purpose or to usage guidance, though a bit more context would not hurt.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain how file paths are resolved, why one might use line/character vs needle plus occurrence, or what the result contains, making full reliable invocation not fully supported.

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 some value by advising that needle is often easier for agents and noting that positions are 1-based, but the schema already covers 1-based line and character semantics. Several parameters such as occurrence and includeHover are still not semantically clarified enough for an agent to choose confidently.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and identifies the resource ('a declaration/definition across module BMIs'). It clearly separates this tool from references or document_symbols, though 'BMIs' is domain-specific and not fully explained.

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 tool's general purpose is clear, and it gives a practical hint that needle is often easier for agents. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as references or workspace_symbols, and it provides no exclusionary criteria.

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