Find indexed definition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: results come from a local SQLite index (implying potentially stale, non-live data) and each hit includes a code snippet. However, it omits staleness handling, the existence of refreshIfStale/clear_index flows, and match semantics, so the behavioral picture is only partially painted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope (index source) and payload (snippets) come in the right order. It is arguably too terse for a 7-parameter tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

Seven parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation leave substantial gaps for a tool whose behavior depends on index freshness and filtering options. The description is not sufficient on its own for an agent to call it confidently.

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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. 'Exact' hints that name matching is literal and 'with snippets' loosely maps to includePreview, but kinds, limit, contextBefore/After, and refreshIfStale are entirely undocumented anywhere, so the agent must infer their behavior.

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 concrete verb and resource (find exact symbol definitions) plus the data source (SQLite workspace index) and a return trait (snippets). It is clear in isolation, but it never differentiates itself from close siblings like find_definition, lsp_definition, or lsp_workspace_symbols, leaving the agent to guess why the indexed variant should be chosen.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the index must first be built via index_workspace or refreshed), and no mention of the many alternative lookup tools in the sibling list. The agent receives no routing signal beyond the word 'indexed'.

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