agtmem_find

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation. The description adds the behavioral trait that it is 'cheaper and more precise' than alternatives, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the symbol is not found, whether it returns multiple matches, or how the limit parameter affects results. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds a comparative efficiency note. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 read-only lookup tool with a simple purpose, the description covers the main use case. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the agent lacks details on return format, pagination, and the meaning of 'scope' and 'signatures'. The description is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete for an agent to understand all behaviors and parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the five parameters. It explains the core 'symbol' parameter implicitly by describing the tool's purpose, but it doesn't clarify the meaning of 'limit', 'scope', 'max_tokens', or 'signatures'. The description adds some value by framing the tool as a symbol lookup, but it leaves the other parameters' semantics to be inferred from their names, which is a gap.

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 purpose: looking up a symbol in the codebase map and returning file:line. It uses a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('codebase map'), and the mention of being 'cheaper and more precise than grepping' distinguishes it from generic search approaches. It also differentiates from siblings like agtmem_search by focusing on exact symbol lookup rather than broader search.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need a symbol's location quickly and efficiently, as opposed to grepping or reading whole files. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like agtmem_search or state when not to use it, but the efficiency comparison provides clear context. A more explicit mention of when to prefer agtmem_search over this tool would push it to 5.

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