symbol_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the default exclusion of generated bindings, the effect of include, and the distilled_records field's labeling, cap of 2, and typical emptiness. This goes well beyond a terse summary, adding meaningful context about what the agent will observe.

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 front-loaded with purpose and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: purpose, return contents, usage timing, include behavior, and distilled_records caveat. The final clause about distilled_records is slightly verbose for an edge case, but the overall structure is 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?

For a complex 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, usage context, and one include behavior, and it differentiates from siblings. It lacks full return shape or error/edge-case details, but these may be better left to schema or additional docs.

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 already documents include and worktree, and the prose adds the critical include syntax and rationale. However, with only 25% schema coverage, the description leaves most parameters (id, ref, lang, limit, symbol, allow_ambiguous) to be inferred, missing an opportunity to clarify their interactions 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a symbol name (or ref/id) to its definition(s)' across multiple languages, with exact or fuzzy matching. It enumerates return contents (signatures, locations, cfg grouping, bound memories) and explicitly frames its role to disambiguate before graph/read calls, distinguishing it from sibling tools like semantic_search or find_callers even without naming them.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use guidance: 'Use to disambiguate before a graph or read call' and explains the default exclusion of generated bindings with the exact include flag syntax to override. However, it stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when NOT to use it, so it misses the full 'when-not/alternatives' bar.

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