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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a valuable filtering behavior: "Filters out string literals, comments, and non-call occurrences." However, it does not mention whether indexing is required, how missing symbols are handled, or any result behavior beyond being AST-based.

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 focused sentence that communicates the mechanism, target resource, and exclusion behavior without redundancy. Every clause adds useful information.

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 enough that the core lookup behavior is adequately described, and an output schema exists. The main gaps are the lack of usage guidance around semantic_search/index_workspace and the absence of practical details about scoping and limit behavior, which leaves the description merely adequate rather than complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate. It adds meaning for symbol_name by stating it refers to "a function or class," but it gives no guidance on directory_path or limit, such as how the directory is searched or what the limit controls. This leaves non-obvious semantics undocumented.

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 plus precise resource: "AST-based lookup of real call sites / instantiations of a function or class." It also clarifies what is excluded, which distinguishes it from string or semantic search. This is far more informative than the bare tool name.

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 AST-based wording implicitly indicates this is for exact code-structure matching rather than fuzzy search, and the sibling tools suggest a semantic-search alternative. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus semantic_search or index_workspace, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context by stating the search is workspace-wide and targets exact definition/declaration locations. Still, it leaves important behavioral details undisclosed, such as whether an index must exist first, how missing or ambiguous symbols are handled, and whether the operation is purely read-only.

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 filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It conveys the core action, target, and scope efficiently while listing relevant symbol categories without over-elaborating.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the basic action is clear, the description lacks usage guidance relative to its three sibling tools and fails to explain two of three parameters. With no annotations, this is too thin to fully support an agent in choosing and invoking the tool correctly across realistic scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for bare parameter schemas. It partially clarifies symbol_name by listing supported symbol types, but it says nothing about the format of symbol_name (e.g., fully qualified vs simple name, case sensitivity). The limit and directory_path parameters are completely unaddressed in the description, leaving their semantics to inference from the schema titles and defaults.

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 ('Finds') with a precise resource: the exact definition/declaration location of symbols, listing supported symbol categories and clarifying the search scope ('across workspace files'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_ast_usages or semantic_search, which target usages or semantically similar matches rather than exact definitions.

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 phrasing 'exact definition/declaration location' implies the tool is appropriate when precise definitions are needed, rather than usages or semantic matches. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over semantic_search or find_ast_usages, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites such as requiring an indexed workspace.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers that the operation walks the project, uses SHA-256 hashing for change detection, and mutates a persistent local ChromaDB store. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond 'index workspace' though it does not mention potential costs, permissions, or failure modes.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and packs in the hashing, incrementality, and storage target without becoming verbose.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is walked, how changes are detected, and what is updated. It is reasonably complete, though it could add an explicit note about running after source changes or before semantic_search.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to clarify the parameter's meaning. It never mentions directory_path or the default of '.', forcing the agent to rely on the schema's 'Directory Path' title and default value. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 names a specific action sequence ('Walks the project', 'detects changed files', 'updates the vector store') and a concrete resource ('persistent local ChromaDB vector store'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools semantic_search and find_ast_usages, which do search and AST lookup rather than indexing.

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 phrase 'incrementally updates' and 'detects changed files' implies the tool is meant to keep the index fresh after edits, but the description never explicitly says when to run it relative to semantic_search or find_ast_usages. It also does not mention exclusions or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the hybrid retrieval approach, the exact return fields, and optional Cross-Encoder re-ranking. It lacks explicit statements about read-only behavior, performance, or side effects, but for a search tool the disclosed behavior is substantial and useful.

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 two sentences with no filler. Key behavior ('ranked code fragments') and return fields are front-loaded, and the optional re-ranking detail is placed at the end without bloating the text.

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 output schema exists and covers the return format, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, important invocation context is missing: what 'directory_path' refers to, whether indexing from index_workspace is required first, and how the repository scope is determined. These gaps make the definition adequate but not fully complete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only enriches two parameters: 'mode' (hybrid BM25+vectors, semantic, keyword) and 'rerank' (Cross-Encoder re-ranking). The parameters 'query', 'limit', and 'directory_path' are not meaningfully explained beyond their schema titles and defaults, leaving significant gaps.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('code') while explaining that results are ranked by meaning and keywords. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like find_ast_usages and go_to_definition by emphasizing semantic/keyword search with ranked code fragments rather than AST or definition lookups.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the user wants to search code semantically or by keyword. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives, leaving the agent to infer selection from the tool name and sibling context.

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