symbol_lookup

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 discloses that the search can be exact or fuzzy, returns candidates with signatures, locations, grouping, and memories, and that generated bindings are excluded by default. It also mentions distilled records. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or idempotent, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 paragraph with no wasted words, covering essential information. It front-loads the main action. However, it could be more structured (e.g., separating output details) to improve readability, but it remains efficient.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description covers the main purpose and output format partially (candidates with signatures, locations, etc.). It does not explain the return format in detail, nor does it address edge cases or error conditions. It is sufficient but not comprehensive.

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%, but the description adds minimal detail beyond the schema. It explains the 'include' parameter behavior (generated bindings) but does not clarify 'id', 'ref', 'lang', 'limit', 'symbol', 'worktree', or 'allow_ambiguous'. The example 'include: ["generated"]' is helpful, but overall, the description fails to 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 starts with a clear verb ('Resolve') and resource ('symbol name or ref/id to its definition(s)'), lists supported languages, and distinguishes from sibling tools by stating it is for disambiguation before graph or read calls. It fully communicates the tool's function.

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. It also explains the default exclusion of generated bindings and the option to include them. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention any 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.