find_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the engine fallback chain (Ctags -> ast-grep -> ripgrep) and implicitly that gitignored files are skipped by default, but it never states that the operation is read-only and non-mutating, nor how results are ordered or truncated beyond the maxResults parameter.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the capability before the implementation detail about engines. No filler, though the parenthetical symbol enumeration is somewhat redundant with the kinds enum in the schema.

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 10 parameters fully covered by the schema but no output schema, the description is adequate for invocation but does not describe the shape of results or how outputFormat changes them. It says what is searched but not what comes back, leaving a modest gap for a tool with this much configuration surface.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, such as the interaction between exactMatch and name, so it neither helps nor hurts.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (code symbols), and enumerates the symbol kinds it covers, so the agent knows what it returns. It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling 'search' tool, which overlaps in intent, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like search, count, or dump_tree. The mention of automatic engine selection implies the tool is a higher-level symbol-aware alternative to raw search, but the agent must infer that routing decision itself.

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