get_symbol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states the returned artifacts (definition plus graph neighborhood) and the include_source toggle, but does not explain depth behavior, error cases, or cost of deep traversal. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 tightly packed paragraphs with no filler. The core purpose is in the first sentence, and the practical guidance follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema exists and parameter docs are complete, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns, why to prefer it, and when to enable source. It doesn't cover depth semantics or error behavior, but those are partially covered in the schema and are minor for a read-only lookup tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful usage semantics for include_source ('when you intend to modify it') that goes beyond the schema, and the symbol parameter's accepted forms are already well documented in 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Full detail for one symbol' with concrete contents (signature, doc, members, callers, callees). This clearly differentiates get_symbol from siblings like search_code, who_calls, and what_it_calls by scoping it to a single symbol's combined context.

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?

Gives explicit usage guidance: prefer this over reading the whole file, and set include_source=true when you intend to modify the symbol. It does not explicitly name all sibling alternatives or when those would be better, but the 'prefer this over...' framing gives clear decision context.

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