find

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool searches the AST and supports pattern matching and filtering, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not discuss performance characteristics, default behavior (e.g., project-wide scope), or whether the search is synchronous. The description adds moderate context beyond the schema but leaves gaps.

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 consists of exactly two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second enumerates key capabilities. No words are wasted, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's 7 parameters, all well-documented in the schema, the description covers the main functional aspects: pattern matching, kind filtering, and export status. It omits mention of the scope parameter (project/file/directory) and pagination (limit, offset), but these are minor details. For a search tool with moderate complexity, the description is sufficiently complete.

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%, earning a baseline of 3. The description adds concrete examples of how to use the query parameter (glob: *Service, regex: /^get/), which enriches the schema's generic description. It also explicitly ties the 'kinds' and 'exported' parameters to symbol filtering, reinforcing their purpose. This extra context justifies a slightly higher score.

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 searches for symbols in the AST by name pattern and kind, using a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('symbols in the AST'). It outlines distinct capabilities (glob patterns, regex, filtering by kind and export status) that differentiate it from sibling tools like get_symbols, which likely only support exact name lookups. This makes the purpose immediately understandable and distinguishable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_symbols or get_workspace_symbols. It does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. An agent would have to infer usage context from the capabilities alone.

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