wincode_find_code_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Locates' implies a non-mutating read operation, and the description notes it searches across the workspace and returns signatures and line numbers. However, it does not disclose behavior on no matches, indexing limitations, or whether any workspace state changes occur.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with the primary verb and object at the start. The parenthetical 'powered by Serena code intelligence' adds vendor context but is not essential to tool invocation, so it is not perfectly taut.

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 the tool's low complexity, two documented parameters, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a simple symbol lookup. It names the resource, scope, symbol types, and result highlights, though it could be more complete by describing the expected output structure or handling of ambiguous queries.

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?

The input schema fully documents both query and kind, so the description adds little parameter-level information. The listed symbol types map loosely to the kind filter, but the description does not clarify query syntax, matching behavior, or how kind interacts with query beyond what the schema already states.

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 a specific action ('Locates'), a specific resource ('code symbols'), and enumerates the types covered (classes, interfaces, methods, functions). It also specifies the key outputs (signatures and line numbers), which distinguishes it from reference-finding and analysis tools.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent would use this when looking for symbol definitions with signatures and line numbers. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as wincode_find_references or wincode_analyze_workspace, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative conditions.

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