find_symbol

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds that references are matched as whole words, which is useful behavioral detail, but it says nothing about reference truncation despite the maxReferences default of 80.

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 that front-loads the primary action (finding definitions) before the secondary one (finding usages). No waste.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description omits what results look like and how maxReferences truncates them. It covers the core intent but leaves the agent guessing about result shape and truncation behavior.

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 coverage is only 50%, so half the parameters (name, references, maxReferences) are undocumented in the schema. The description partly compensates by clarifying the name format and whole-word reference semantics, but leaves the references toggle and the 80-reference cap 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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (symbol definitions and usages), and names the accepted input formats (name or Container.name). It is distinguishable from generic siblings like search_code, though it never distinguishes itself from the very similar lsp_definition/lsp_references/vscode_find_references.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus the closely related lsp_definition, lsp_references, vscode_find_references, or search_code siblings. Usage is only implied by the description of what it searches.

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