find_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses cost ('cheaper'), output ('locations and compact signatures'), and optional parameters. It does not detail matching semantics (case sensitivity, exact match), result limits, or side effects, though it appears to be read-only.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, output/benefit, and options. No filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently conveys all necessary context.

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 read-only lookup tool with 3 well-documented parameters, the description gives a solid overview of expected output (locations and signatures) and performance characteristics. Without an output schema, it does not specify result structure details, but it is sufficient for common use cases.

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% and each parameter already has a clear description. The description adds reference to 'filter by language or include call sites' which maps to the parameters, but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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 specific action ('Find') on a specific resource ('function, class, or method definitions') by name. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_callers by focusing on definitions and locations rather than call sites.

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 implies when to use it: 'far cheaper than reading files' suggests using this for symbol lookups instead of reading entire files. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, which keeps it from a 5.

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