graph.get_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It states 'retrieves' (implying read-only) and mentions 'from the database,' but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or the nature of the returned data beyond basic fields. The agent is left to assume safety and behavior.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently structured for quick comprehension. However, it lacks any structural elements like examples or parameter definitions that could enhance clarity without increasing verbosity significantly.

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 a single required parameter and an output schema, the complexity is low. The description mentions what data is returned (info, file, line numbers), which is helpful. But it omits parameter semantics and any edge-case behavior. It is adequate but not thorough for a tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 schema has 0% property descriptions, so the description should compensate. It only says 'retrieves a symbol's info' without explaining what the required 'name' parameter represents (symbol name? file path?). The output schema exists but is not referenced. Minimal value added beyond the schema itself.

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 the tool retrieves a symbol's info, file, and line numbers. The verb 'retrieves' and the specified data types make the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like graph.trace_calls or graph.get_architecture, though the resource (symbol) is distinct.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or recommended scenarios. The description lacks any contextual usage advice.

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