find_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about matching semantics (substring vs fuzzy vs case sensitivity), search scope (whole project vs open files), result limits, or whether results include file/line locations. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and the resource enumeration placed early. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail noted above.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn what a match looks like (file path, line, kind) and how many results come back, and it supplies neither. For a lookup tool the caller cannot predict the response shape from any structured field.

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%, so both parameters (name, exactMatch) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the scoping hint "across the project" and does not elaborate on how exactMatch changes matching behavior or what name forms are accepted, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ("Locate") and enumerates the resource kinds it covers (functions, classes, interfaces, types, variables), which is more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like analyze_project or trace_dependencies, so the agent must infer where symbol lookup ends and analysis begins.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the six sibling analysis tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the word "Locate"; an agent choosing between find_symbol and analyze_project gets no routing help.

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