list_symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the global/local scope distinction, but doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or potential limitations. It's a simple read operation, so minimal additional transparency is needed.

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?

One-sentence description, front-loaded with the main action. No fluff, efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema and readOnly annotation, but the description lacks parameter explanations and usage scenarios. With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too minimal to be considered complete. It covers the basic purpose but not the full context.

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?

Input schema has 3 parameters, but description covers only 0% of them. The description mentions 'global or local' which hints at the scope parameter, but doesn't explain project_id or program_name semantics. The description adds little value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for low schema coverage.

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 lists CX-Programmer symbols/address comments with global or local scope. It uses a specific verb (List) and resource (symbols/address comments), and distinguishes from sibling listing tools like list_programs and list_sections by focusing on symbols.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other listing tools, nor when to use 'scope' vs 'program_name' parameters. The description only implies usage for symbol listing, but omits context such as prerequisites or when to filter by program.

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