where

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'find where a symbol is defined', which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, non-destructive, or whether special authentication is needed. No mention of side effects or performance considerations.

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: a single sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Find', clearly communicating the action. Every word serves a purpose, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 absence of an output schema and the presence of 27 sibling tools, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what 'where' returns (e.g., file location, line number, or multiple definitions). The context is incomplete for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities without additional information.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Symbol name' and 'Project ID'. It provides no context on value formats, required vs optional, or examples. It neither harms nor significantly helps beyond the schema.

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 'Find where a symbol is defined' clearly states the verb (find) and resource (symbol definition), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_code' (general code search) and 'fn_impact' (impact analysis) by focusing specifically on locating definitions. However, it could be more precise about the output (e.g., file and line number).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_code' or 'fn_impact'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. The description offers no contextual usage instructions.

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