read_symbols

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

No annotations present, but description covers key behavioral traits: batching behavior (saves round trips), refusal threshold (≥70% symbols) and redirection to smart_read. Does not mention error handling or performance guarantees, but sufficient for a read-only tool.

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?

Three sentences: purpose+benefit, best-fit, alternatives. Front-loaded with core action. Every sentence adds distinct value; no redundancy or fluff.

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?

No output schema, but tool name and display modes (full/head/tail/outline) imply return structure. Could explicitly mention output format or reference read_symbol for details. Generally complete given sibling 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters described). Description adds business logic (max 10 symbols, default display mode 'auto') and usage context (example symbol names). Provides incremental value beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states verb (batch read) and resource (multiple symbols from one file). Distinguishes from sibling read_symbol by highlighting efficiency (saves N-1 round trips).

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?

Explicitly specifies best-fit range (3-8 symbols), when to use simpler alternative (1-2 symbols -> read_symbol), when handler refuses (≥70% of file's symbols -> smart_read), and for edit preparation (read_for_edit).

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