find_symbol_definition

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. "Locate" weakly implies a read-only lookup, but it does not say what gets scanned (whole project vs. the path argument), whether results are truncated or paginated, or what the returned structure looks like — critical for a tool with no output schema.

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 single phrase is front-loaded and contains no wasted words, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than being efficiently concise. It reads like a title restated rather than a complete description.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, this description is the only source of behavioral information and it delivers almost none. An agent would have to guess at symbol syntax, path semantics, and result shape before calling it.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It never explains what "symbol" should be (fully qualified name, bare identifier, method signature) or whether "path" scopes the search to a file or directory, leaving the optional parameter's effect entirely opaque.

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?

"Locate symbol definitions in AST" names a specific verb (locate) and resource (symbol definitions) plus an operating domain (AST), so the core action is understandable. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from sibling find_symbol_references or surgical_replace_symbol, so an agent cannot infer why to choose this one over those.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus find_symbol_references or surgical_replace_symbol, and no mention of prerequisites. The only implicit cue is "in AST," which hints at a static-analysis scope but provides no selection guidance.

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