Get symbol context

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: side effects ('none beyond database reads'), output details (file locations, workspace data, related changesets, evidence refs), and failure modes ('returns an empty list when the code graph has not indexed the symbol'). This is comprehensive.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (Purpose, When to use, Inputs, Side effects, Output, Failure modes). It is concise but not overly terse; every section adds value. Could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature (lookup by symbol), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage context, inputs, side effects, output, and failure modes. It is fully complete for an agent to understand invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's explanation of parameters ('symbol is the name to match; limit caps returned entities') adds minimal meaning beyond the schema descriptions, which already define the parameters adequately.

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 verb 'find' and the resource 'code graph entities', and specifies matching by symbol name. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like explain_change and get_changeset_detail, which focus on changes or workspace data, by focusing on code graph entity lookup.

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 when to use: 'call before modifying a function, class, method, or variable so the agent can see definitions and related changesets'. It provides a clear context but does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, which would make it more complete.

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