find_variable

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

The description discloses the text-matching method and indexed-file scope, and reports the return format with context snippets. However, with no annotations, it does not address potential limitations like case sensitivity, regex behavior, or behavior when no matches are found.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args and Returns sections are clearly structured, and there is no redundant content.

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 simple read-only lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, method, input parameters, and return type. It doesn't mention edge cases or alternatives, but is otherwise sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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%, but the Args section provides some explanation for both parameters. variable_name is defined clearly, while project is only described as an 'optional filter', adding minimal value beyond the schema's default value.

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 finds variables, constants, enum values, and #defines, and mentions definitions and usages. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from search_code, but the focus on specific identifiers gives a distinct purpose.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_code or find_function. The description implies usage for variable lookups but does not state exclusions or preferred contexts.

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