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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is a basic transparency signal. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, potential large results, or error handling for missing projects or symbols, which would be useful but are not required for an obviously non-destructive get operation.

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 a single sentence that is direct and free of filler. It front-loads the core purpose and provides just enough detail to identify the tool, earning every word.

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 seven parameters and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not set expectations about the return format (e.g., a list or tree), nor does it explain how optional parameters like docs, page, or output_format affect results. The one-line description is insufficient for an agent to confidently predict the tool's behavior beyond the basics.

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%, with all seven parameters having descriptive text in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which correctly establishes a baseline of 3. The mention of 'base, interfaces, derived' describes output content, not parameter usage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'type hierarchy' and scope 'for a symbol in a project', explicitly listing components (base, interfaces, derived). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like xmp4_info or xmp4_usages, which serve different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xmp4_info or xmp4_outline. It simply states what it does without context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name and description.

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