opencode_find_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add a genuine behavioral trait: that the tool returns an 'unavailable' report rather than searching on 2.x servers, which is more than most definitions give. It still omits return shape, symbol semantics, and behavior on other server versions.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the critical availability caveat. No filler; every clause earns its place, though the structure is minimal given what it omits.

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 2-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. The availability warning is essential and present, but it says nothing about what a 'symbol' is, how 'directory' scopes the search, or what the agent should do instead.

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 coverage is 0% across two parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'By name' loosely maps to 'query', but 'directory' (scope of the search) is entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find workspace symbols by name'), and the word 'symbol' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling opencode_find_text and opencode_find_file. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 NOTE gives a real when-not condition by declaring the tool reports unavailable on 2.x servers, which steers the agent away. However, it never names the workable alternative (find_text/find_file) or states the conditions under which this tool is the right pick, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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