find_function

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return type (header declarations and source usages) and the existence of a project filter, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any limitations on scope, or how results are ordered or paginated.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear one-line purpose, an Args block, and a Returns note. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting is scannable.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose, parameters, and return value. It lacks detail on edge cases (e.g., function not found) but is complete enough for expected usage.

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%, and the description compensates well by providing an Args section with examples for function_name and explaining project as an optional filter. However, it does not specify default behavior when project is empty or accepted value formats.

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 tool's purpose: to find where a function is defined (headers) and used (source files). It uses a specific verb 'find' and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from siblings like find_variable and search_code.

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 the tool via its focus on function definitions and usages, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The optional project filter adds context, yet there is no direct 'when not to use' guidance.

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