symbol

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 discloses what kinds of data are returned and how names can be formatted, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, error behavior, or performance characteristics. For a read-only lookup tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds useful information. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to document return values in detail, though it helpfully lists the main categories. For a two-parameter tool with no annotations, the main remaining gap is explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains that name can be plain, qualified, or path:line, and that path= can be used to disambiguate, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. The exact expected format of path is still not specified, keeping it from a 5.

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 identifies the resource ('one symbol') and lists the kinds of information returned: location, signature, doc, complexity, members, callers, callees. It is easy to distinguish from search-oriented siblings like find_symbols, but it does not explicitly name an alternative or state a verb, so it falls just 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 description gives one usage tip: use path= to disambiguate. It implies the tool is for retrieving comprehensive information about a single symbol, but it does not describe when to choose it over siblings such as find_symbols, symbol_source, or references, nor does it state any exclusions.

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