Find symbol definition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that results come from the symbol index and are exact file:line locations, implying a read-only lookup. However, it does not mention potential multiple matches, index staleness, or what happens when a symbol is not found.

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 compact and information-dense. Each sentence earns its place: what it returns, when to prefer it, and the follow-up action for the agent. No filler or redundant schema repetition.

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 has no output schema, but the description provides the essential return contract ('Exact file:line') and a practical next step. It is complete enough for straightforward definition lookups, though it could mention disambiguation behavior around multiple matches or how the symbol index stays current.

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 input schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat them. The description adds little beyond naming some symbol kinds, while the schema already covers exact/fallback matching, file_glob, and exported_only.

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's job: return the exact file:line where a symbol is defined, sourced from the symbol index. It includes a specific resource ('symbol index') and output type, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_references.

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 gives practical guidance: use this instead of grepping for definitions, and then read only the returned line range. This is clear context, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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