ontomics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by specifying behavioral traits: it describes what information is returned (signature, parameters, callers, callees, domain concepts), performance characteristics ('Faster'), and operational constraints ('WITHOUT reading its source file'). It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but covers core behavior adequately.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first defines the tool's purpose and output, the second provides usage guidelines and comparison. Every phrase adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool returns and when to use it. It could be more complete by specifying return format details or error cases, but covers the essential information needed for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 100% with one parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (just mentions 'function or class name' generically), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 the specific action ('Describe a function or class'), resource ('symbol'), and scope ('WITHOUT reading its source file'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'describe_file' or 'read' operations. It explicitly contrasts with 'Read' for understanding symbol functionality and codebase integration.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when asked "what does function X do" or "what is class X"') and contrasts it with alternatives ('Faster and more informative than Read'). This gives clear context for selection among sibling tools.

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