infosys_declaration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what data the read yields (full ST declaration, page URL), but discloses nothing further about pagination, resolution failures, or lookup scope.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the returned payload and ending with the strongest routing cue. There is mild verbosity in the field enumeration, but no wasted framing.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values (it does anyway, harmlessly). Safety is covered by annotations. The remaining gap is the undocumented parameters, which keeps this from being fully complete.

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% and neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description only obliquely implies that 'symbol' is a library symbol; the optional 'library' parameter is entirely unexplained, so an agent must guess its meaning and format.

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?

States a specific resource (a library symbol's declaration) and enumerates what it returns (kind, inputs/outputs, struct members, enum values, EXTENDS/IMPLEMENTS, ST text, URL). It's much clearer than a generic search tool, though it doesn't explicitly name which sibling (e.g. infosys_search_symbols) it should be preferred over.

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 thing to call before writing code against an FB you have not used before" gives an implied when-to-use. However, it names no alternatives and no exclusion conditions versus infosys_search_symbols, infosys_search, or infosys_get_page, which are the likely competing tools.

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