symbol_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It explains the return format (candidates with signatures, locations, groupings, memories) and the default exclusion of generated bindings. While it does not explicitly state it is read-only, the nature of a lookup tool and the description imply no side effects.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and supported languages, followed by output details and a usage hint. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values: candidates with signatures, locations, symbol grouping, and memories. It also covers the include parameter's behavior for generated bindings. For a lookup tool with 8 parameters, this provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand what the tool does and returns.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'symbol name (or ref/id)' corresponds to the symbol, ref, and id parameters. It also clarifies the 'include' parameter for opting into generated bindings and mentions fuzzy matching. This adds significant value beyond the schema's basic type info.

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 resolves a symbol name to its definitions across multiple languages with exact or fuzzy matching. It specifies the output includes signatures, locations, logical-symbol grouping, and memories. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'docs_for_symbol' or 'find_callers' by focusing on definition resolution.

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 says 'Use to disambiguate before a graph or read call,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It also notes that generated bindings are excluded by default, but does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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