locate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals deterministic parsing from the live AST, zero-match definitiveness, capped results, pagination via offset, and default filtering to functions+classes. These details far exceed minimal expectations.

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?

Three dense sentences pack the core purpose, usage, and rationale without redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and organizes supporting details logically, earning its length.

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 no output schema, the description defines the return format (file:line + body hash), covers cap and pagination behavior, and explains the zero-match result as definitive. Combined with the rich schema, the tool is fully comprehensible without further context.

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 a baseline of 3 is appropriate. However, the description adds a key behavioral nuance not in the schema: a named symbol lookup searches every kind. This supplemental meaning justifies a 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('locate') and resource ('symbols in an enrolled repo') with an explicit output mapping (name → file:line + body hash). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like structure, diff, and hash by focusing on deterministic definition 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 states when to use the tool ('verify a symbol exists before claiming it does') and contrasts it with grep, explaining why grep is unreliable. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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