Locate a code symbol by name across a specified pool, optionally filtering by language or symbol type such as function, class, method, or variable.
Find a specific code symbol (function, class, variable) by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | Filter by language (python, js, etc.) | |
| pool_name | No | Pool to search | |
| symbol_name | Yes | Name of the symbol to find | |
| symbol_type | No | Filter: function, class, method, variable |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: matching semantics (exact vs partial/fuzzy), default search scope across pools, result limits, and behavior when no match is found are all unstated. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.
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 the action and resource first and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should cover match semantics, scope across pools, and result shape. It covers none of these, leaving an agent guessing about how the search actually behaves.
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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema; the description only restates the symbol-type examples. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no extra semantics such as matching behavior for symbol_name or pool defaulting.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Find a specific code symbol' with parenthetical examples (function, class, variable) and the lookup key 'by name'. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like trawl_search_code or trawl_search_entities, which an agent could easily confuse with this symbol lookup.
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 phrase 'by name' implies this is the exact-name lookup path, and requiring symbol_name reinforces that, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over trawl_search_code / trawl_search_entities, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.