find_symbol

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions searching by pattern and returning locations, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or what 'locations' specifically means. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral details.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every sentence earns its place by stating the core action and result, making it efficient despite its simplicity.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter semantics or usage context, though the output schema may cover return values. For a search tool with many parameters, more guidance is needed, but the existence of an output schema prevents the lowest score.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 8 parameters, the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'pattern' which loosely relates to 'name_path_pattern', but doesn't explain any other parameters like 'depth', 'include_kinds', or 'max_answer_chars'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 'Search symbols by pattern. Returns locations.' states the basic action (search) and resource (symbols), but is vague about what 'symbols' are in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_referencing_symbols' or 'get_symbols_overview'. It provides a minimal viable purpose statement without specific details about the search scope or what constitutes a symbol.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_referencing_symbols' or 'get_symbols_overview'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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