Get Symbol Info

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds the scoping behavior (global/project) beyond annotations, but does not describe what 'detailed information' contains beyond what the output schema provides. No contradiction with annotations.

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, concise sentence of 19 words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, then adds the scope nuance. No wasted words.

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 the simple getter nature, full schema description, output schema presence, and safety annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers the tool's main function and scoping, though 'detailed information' could be slightly more explicit about what fields are returned (though the output schema presumably covers this).

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?

Both parameters (symbol and projectPath) are fully described in the schema with examples and usage details. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already covers, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific symbol'. It identifies the resource (symbol) and distinguishes this from sibling search/list tools by focusing on a single symbol. The scope behavior (global vs project) adds specificity.

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 provides context on when global vs project-scope applies ('when projectPath is supplied or a project has been opened'), but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like search_symbols or list_symbol_pins. Usage is implied for fetching info about a specific symbol, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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