kconfig_symbol

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the breadth of the returned data and is implicitly a query rather than a mutation, but it never states that it is read-only, nor how it behaves for an unknown or unset symbol, nor whether it requires an active session. The enumeration of returned fields is largely redundant with the existing output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the scope ('Everything about one symbol') and then lists the covered facets in a compact clause chain. No filler, no repetition, and the most important framing comes first.

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 read tool that already has an output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it tells the agent what facets it can expect and roughly what the call is for. The gaps are the unexplained 'name' parameter and the absence of any mention of session/config prerequisites or error behavior.

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 0% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'symbol' is at least inferable from 'Everything about one symbol', but 'name' is left entirely unexplained and is ambiguous given siblings like kconfig_sessions and kconfig_load. An agent must guess whether it is a session identifier or something else.

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 names the resource (one Kconfig symbol) and enumerates the specific facets returned: type, prompt, value and its rationale, help text, definition site, dependencies, selects/implies. That is far more concrete than a name restatement. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings such as kconfig_what_selects or kconfig_search, which overlap on the 'what selects it' facet.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Everything about one symbol', suggesting the tool is for full inspection once a symbol name is known. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of when a narrower sibling like kconfig_what_selects or kconfig_why_not is preferable, and no note about prerequisites such as needing a loaded config.

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