find_symbol

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lacks details on search scope (current project vs entire codebase), multiple matches, or behavior when symbol not found. The minimal description does not disclose important behavioral traits.

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 concise sentence that efficiently communicates the purpose. Every word adds value; no redundant information.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and only 1 line description. Missing details on result format, pagination, error handling, or completeness guarantees. Inadequate for a search tool with multiple possible results.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description adds meaning by listing symbol types (class, method, field, enum, endpoint) but does not explain the 'kind' parameter or its possible values beyond the types mentioned. It partially compensates but not fully.

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 locates various symbols (class, method, field, enum, endpoint) by name and provides file:line location. It distinguishes from siblings like find_references (usages) and get_endpoint (specific to endpoints).

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings. For example, it doesn't say 'use this for definitions; use find_references for usages' or specify prerequisites.

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