Find Symbol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool returns the definition plus call-graph relationships, which is valuable. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication or indexing is required, or any side-effect profile. The returned data is partly covered by the output schema, but safety and prerequisites are left implicit.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose and advantage, the second gives parameter guidance. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter lookup tool with an output schema present, the description covers the primary use case, the key decision about fuzzy matching, and the differentiating value over Grep. It doesn't explain prerequisites like whether an index exists, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness, this is a minor gap rather than a fail.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a decision rule for the exact parameter: 'Set exact=False for fuzzy substring matching when unsure of the exact name.' This goes beyond the schema's mechanical descriptions to tell the agent when to change the default, adding real usage semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'look up a specific function/class/symbol by name'. It also differentiates from Grep by adding 'preferred over Grep since it returns the definition plus its call-graph relationships in one call', giving an agent a clear reason to choose this tool over an alternative.

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 names Grep as the alternative and states the condition that makes this tool preferable. It also advises when to flip exact to false ('when unsure of the exact name'). It doesn't explicitly address other siblings like search or conditions when this tool should not be used, which keeps it from a 5, but the guidance is concrete and useful.

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