proj_resolve_symbol

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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses important behavior: it follows variable types through FB/STRUCT definitions, resolves library-type hops from the runtime datatype table when reachable, and disambiguates duplicate first names by the connected ADS port. These are meaningful operational details not present in the annotations or schema.

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 front-loaded with the core mapping operation and then adds relevant caveats about library types and duplicate names. It is dense but each sentence contributes useful information; the unusual line breaks are cosmetic rather than wasteful.

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 tool's complexity, read-only annotations, and existing output schema, the description provides enough operational context for correct invocation. It does omit explicit sibling guidance and error/edge-case behavior when a symbol is not reachable, which keeps it 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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It provides a concrete symbol-path example (MAIN.fbFill.fbValve.bOpen) and explains the duplicate-name behavior tied to the ADS port, which gives useful semantics beyond the bare 'symbol' string field.

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 states a specific verb and resource: mapping an ADS symbol path to the file:line where each hop is declared, including FB/STRUCT traversal. It clearly distinguishes this from generic search tools by emphasizing per-hop declaration resolution, but it does not explicitly name or compare itself with siblings such as infosys_declaration or ads_symbol_info.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives. An agent can infer that it is for declaration-file lookup, but there is no guidance on choosing it over sibling tools like proj_search, infosys_search_symbols, or ads_symbol_info.

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