symbol_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and only discloses that output includes line numbers and is cheap. It says nothing about failure modes (unknown symbol, out-of-range), what the optional `context`/`max_lines` parameters do behaviorally, or how a range target interacts with the symbol lookup.

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-loading the resource and the cost rationale; nothing is wasted and the key constraint (range syntax) is tucked in parenthetically without bloating the text.

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 return values need not be described, but the tool has 4 undocumented parameters at 0% coverage and no annotations, and the description covers only one param plus a cost note. An agent still cannot confidently supply `context` or `max_lines`.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies only `target` (symbol name or path:start-end range); `path`, `context`, and `max_lines` are left completely unexplained 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?

The description states a specific resource ('source text of one symbol') and even disambiguates the target format as a symbol or a path:start-end range. But it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like `symbol`, `grep`, or `file_outline`, leaving the agent to guess which retrieval tool to pick.

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?

'Cheaper than reading the file' implies a usage context — prefer this over reading the whole file — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. other source-reading siblings, no exclusions, and no mention of when `symbol` or `file_outline` would be better.

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