Find symbols and references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only code navigation' and adds behavior details about returning precise byte offsets and bounded snippets, which is useful operational context beyond the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the read-only nature and the core actions. No wasted words; every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 8 parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately captures the tool's essence. It does not explain pagination or redaction, but these are fully covered in the schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to grasp the primary function.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning; it hints at the mode via the list of results (definitions, references, etc.) but does not detail parameters like limit or cursor. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (find) and resource (symbol definitions, textual references, imports, and exports) within a project. It also specifies precise byte offsets and bounded snippets, making the tool's scope distinct from generic search. Though it doesn't name siblings, it is sufficiently specific.

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 like search_code or list_symbols. It only states what the tool does, leaving the selection decision to the agent without explicit context or exclusions.

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