find_symbol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: fuzzy matching for typos, performance ('much faster'), accuracy ('better accuracy'), and output format ('returns exact file path and line number'). It doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, but covers core operational traits well.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and key alternative, followed by supporting details. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical information (fuzzy matching, output, performance), with zero wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, key behaviors, and output, but lacks details on error cases or response structure. With no output schema, it could better explain return values, but it's sufficient for effective use.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying 'symbol' is for 'functions, classes, or variables' and 'type' filtering, which the schema's enum already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('find', 'returns') and resources ('symbols', 'functions, classes, or variables'), explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tool 'Grep' (likely referring to 'search_code'). It specifies the exact output ('file path and line number') and key features ('fuzzy matching', 'faster', 'better accuracy').

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 explicit usage guidance: 'PREFERRED FOR SYMBOLS: Use this INSTEAD OF Grep when looking for specific functions, classes, or variables.' It clearly states when to use this tool (for symbols) and when not to (use Grep/search_code for other cases), naming the alternative tool directly.

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