find_symbol

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered without the description. The only extra signal is the word 'indexed', which faintly implies a prior index_code step, but no explicit prerequisite, result limits, or scope behavior is disclosed.

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 tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the missing detail.

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?

A search tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, no usage guidance, and only annotation-provided safety. Much more is needed for an agent to call it correctly versus its many siblings.

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 all three parameters, so the description carries the burden and fails to compensate. 'By name' loosely maps to the name parameter but gives no format (simple vs qualified name), and repo_path and max_results are entirely unexplained.

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 states a clear verb (Find) and resource (indexed symbols) with scope (across all supported languages) and the matching key (by name). It does not, however, differentiate from close siblings such as lsp_symbols, map_find_symbol, or search_code, leaving the agent to guess which symbol-lookup tool applies.

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 stated prerequisite that an index must exist (despite 'indexed' implying it), and no mention of when to prefer this over lsp_symbols or map_find_symbol. The agent gets no routing information.

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