symbols

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that output can be very large and that max_tokens caps output to prevent overflow. It clearly states the tool indexes all symbols in the repo. A score of 4 is appropriate; it could explicitly state read-only behavior, but it's implied.

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 concise paragraphs: purpose first, then usage warning and alternatives, then parameter details. Front-loaded with key info, no wasted words.

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 (scans entire repo), presence of output schema (no need to explain returns), and sibling tools, the description is complete. It covers warnings, output format options, and parameter details adequately.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains max_tokens ('cap output, default 8000'), exclude_dirs ('comma-separated directory prefixes to skip'), and output_format ('text or json'). repo_path is self-explanatory with default '/demo'. This adds meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states 'Full symbol index — every function, class, component, hook, type in the repo with signatures, locations, and relationships.' This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes from siblings 'focus' and 'lookup' mentioned as alternatives.

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 says 'For scoped queries, use focus or lookup instead — they're much cheaper.' Also warns about large output and default max_tokens, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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