find_symbol

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it implies a search operation but doesn't describe what happens with multiple matches, error conditions, or performance characteristics. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single run-on string with pipe separators and dashes, lacking proper sentence structure. While it's brief, the formatting makes it harder to parse than a well-structured sentence. The information is front-loaded but presented in a disorganized manner that reduces clarity.

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 search tool with good annotations (read-only, idempotent) and full schema coverage, the description provides basic purpose but lacks important context. Without an output schema, it doesn't describe what results look like (locations, line numbers, confidence scores). The description doesn't address scope limitations or how it interacts with the project structure beyond the projectPath parameter.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions symbol types (function, class, variable) which are already covered by the symbolType enum, but provides no additional context about how parameters interact or special considerations.

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 symbol definitions with specific examples (function, class, variable) and synonyms (find, locate, where is). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'find_references' by focusing on definitions rather than references. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools like 'search_memories_advanced' which might also search for symbols.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'find_references' (for finding references rather than definitions) or 'search_memories_advanced' (which might search across different contexts). There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites stated.

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