Jump to any code symbol to return its definition, signature, callers, callees, and dependencies in one call, replacing multiple Read and Grep searches.
Jump to any symbol — returns definition, signature, callers, callees, deps in ONE call. Replaces 5-10 Read/Grep calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max candidates if name is ambiguous | |
| scope | No | Path prefix to narrow search (e.g. 'src/auth/') | |
| symbol | Yes | Symbol name to find |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned content set (definition, signature, callers, callees, deps) and implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about cost, rate limits, permission needs, or how ambiguous/truncated results behave.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no waste; the core capability comes first and the efficiency claim second. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully summarizes the return payload and the reason to prefer it over raw Read/Grep. It is nearly complete for a 3-param lookup tool, only missing notes on ambiguity/limit handling and permissions.
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 100%, so symbol, scope, and limit are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default-behavior detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (jump to) and resource (any symbol) and enumerates the payload it returns: definition, signature, callers, callees, deps. An agent can distinguish it from read-only lookups like code.symbols or code.map, though it never explicitly names those siblings.
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?
'Replaces 5-10 Read/Grep calls' implies the intended situation — when you want full context on one symbol without multiple round trips — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no named alternative among code.symbols, code.trace, code.understand, etc.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.