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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns full source, but it does not clarify whether 'expand' also modifies the file, whether it is purely read-only, or how failures like 'symbol not found' behave.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler. The core action, target, and output are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter tool with a simple return value, the description is mostly adequate, and the schema covers the parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least hint at side effects or selection context; those gaps leave some ambiguity for an agent deciding to call this tool.

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?

The input schema already provides full coverage for both parameters: file_path is 'Relative workspace path to the file' and symbol_name is 'Exact identifier'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond naming the kind of symbol ('function, class, or method'), so it stays at the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Expand'), a specific resource type ('one skeletonized function, class, or method'), and the result ('return its full source'). This makes the tool's role immediately distinguishable from siblings like hexum_shrink, which likely performs the inverse operation.

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 'skeletonized' implies this tool is used after a shrink/skeletonization workflow, and the return-value phrasing indicates it is for retrieving full source. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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