symbol_status

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it states 'read-only, no LLM', specifies the exact return keys, explains what each verdict means, and warns against resurrecting a superseded name. This gives an agent a precise mental model of behavior and side-effects.

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, dense sentence that leads with the core purpose before diving into return details and verdict semantics. Every clause adds value, though the long dash-heavy construction is slightly compressed; overall it is efficient and well-front-loaded.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is fully complete: it explains the return contract, all possible verdicts, and the correct action to take. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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. The description implies that 'name' refers to a code symbol ('for a single code symbol'), but it does not specify expected format, qualification, or edge cases for the argument. This is a partial compensation, not a full one.

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 opens with 'One-shot verdict for a single code symbol you are about to emit', which specifies a concrete verb ('verdict'), a distinct resource ('code symbol'), and a unique scope ('single', 'one-shot'). This clearly separates it from broader sibling report tools like supersession_report or deprecate_symbol, so an agent can recognize its niche without inspecting schemas.

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 phrase 'you are about to emit' gives a clear situational trigger: call this before emitting a symbol to check for deprecation. It also gives an explicit instruction ('do NOT resurrect name') when verdict is 'superseded'. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is specific enough for most cases.

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